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

191–200 of 429 posts

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#191

Post by gcampbell »

jimmaswell wrote: post #136
Dirlewanger wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If density is so awful, why have malls been closing left and right for years? Why have so many people been flocking to more dense neighborhoods?

I'd guess because of the economy. The high paying/skilled jobs are there so people were forced to move. Outside of this strange vocal minority that shows up here, very few people would actually prefer to live in an urban area instead of a small town or suburb or whatever given the choice.

Do you have stats to back that up? A lot of the recent polling I've seen implies the opposite, especially for younger generations.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#192

Post by jimmaswell »

crispyambulance wrote: post #185
jimmaswell wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I want to know what it's supposed to amount to. Talking to people randomly on the street or on the bus?

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#193

Post by ryanianian »

singron wrote: post #155
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…

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…

Self-driving in itself won't help, but it's much more feasible for a fully autonomous system of cars to be totally electric since you can plan for the charging logistics as part of the system's design.

A walkable, pro-self-driving-car city could also theoretically tax self-driving-car rides to offset environmental impact.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#194

Post by stretchwithme »

I look forward to a time when vehicles and pedestrians aren't interacting at all. Vehicles should be below where people walk and ride bikes. Either roads are designed to be underground or we one layer up from existing roads. And that's were storefronts will be.

Robotic construction is going to drive down construction costs dramatically, so I think it will be feasible. Vehicles will be totally electric a few decades from now, so pollution will be less of an issue. Cities will get quieter and we'll see a lot more vegetable gardens and open space where streets used to be.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#195

Post by chc »

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…

Isn't this pretty much true by definition, though? People who want density will tend to all go to the same relatively few places (that's how you get density), whereas people who want to avoid density will go to different places (because if they all went to the same place it would become dense).

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#196

Post by stale2002 »

_m8fo wrote: post #146
stale2002 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

.... Which is a benefit of high density cities, correct?

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#197

Post by jimmaswell »

supplied_demand wrote: post #149
jimmaswell wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Yes, you can track a train bus or uber on your phone, but you're still working around their schedule. The uber will take some time to get there and there might not be any available, and the other transit may be between scheduled departures. If it's 4:05 and the bus comes every hour, you're sitting on your hands until 5.

Rent is usually correlated with density, what do you mean by that?

My car was $1000 used, and in terms of maintenance, the most expensive repair it's needed was $30 (not missing a zero, it's thirty), having the transmission line replaced with a hose because it broke. There have been fluid changes, new tires, DMV registration etc. but that would all be the same in a newer car. I could probably sell it for more than $1000 if I wanted, but I don't want to - 28-38ish MPG and very reliable, a 1998 Ford Escort ZX2.

Haven't recent events in the housing market shown that expecting your real estate to appreciate is a mistake? Real estate can't just keep appreciating faster than inflation forever; greater fool theory only works in a market for so long. If you buy a house, plan around it depreciating.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#198

Post by com2kid »

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?

Lots of DT areas of cities are walkable, but Boston is kind of unique in that it has miles and miles of walkable streets. Its urban core is just really big.

Portions of Seattle are very walkable (From the International District going north, quite a few miles), and individual parts of Chicago are walkable. Heck there are 2 or 3 mile stretches of San Diego are walkable (there might be more than that, I only spent a week there!)

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#199

Post by zpallin »

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…

Some corrections...

Tokyo is not a super dense city like New York. It has half the urban density as New York and doesn't even show up in the top 20 most-dense cities.

You also cannot put Los Angeles and Brasilia together. Brasilia has 1/8th the urban density of Los Angeles. Brasilia might as well be a suburb.

Furthermore, I am not sure how you are defining success but population and even GDP are not guaranteed measurements of a successful cities. A city can be both populous and miserable, such as Beijing, or economically insignificant and happy, such as San Luis Obispo, CA. So I would reconsider your claim... in truth, the happiest cities are among the most walkable.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#200

Post by ef4 »

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…

People always focus on these extreme endpoints, but to get a vibrant walkable neighborhood you don't need anything remotely close to New York or Tokyo densities.

My street in Somerville, MA has a WalkScore (91) that's higher than the average score for New York city (89), yet every building in my neighborhood is detached and three stories tall. I have a back yard with grass. Not a big one, but it feels nothing like lower Manhattan. And I can walk or bike to literally everything I need in a given week.

People equate "crowded" and "ugly" with "walkable" when it's just not accurate. Being more green and more attractive is literally one of the components of being walkable, because people need to actually want to walk.

Post reply on HN