Live data from Hacker News

New Cities

blog.ycombinator.com

211–220 of 710 posts

Re: New Cities

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would take me about an hour to walk to the nearest grocery store (not counting corner stores, because all they sell is junk food). There's a bigger issue here. Suppose the grocery store was 10 minutes away. You'd still need to drive there, because how are you going to get the food back to your house? I have lived carless and had to make many independent trips per week to buy food. Being able to do it all at once…

If it's more efficient for you to make one trip to the store rather than several, it's even more efficient for the store to send one truck to make deliveries to many people in one trip. Even more so if enough people do so that the store can switch from a storefront laid out for customers (with cashiers, displays, and tags on shelves) to a warehouse.

That's true. But they don't.

Safeway has a long-running delivery program, but they sure aren't pushing it very hard.

The system in Shanghai, where you might expect delivery to be popular, is that supermarkets operate their own buses which stop near your home. It solves the "the store is far away" problem, but it does nothing for the "I need more food than I can personally carry" problem.

Re: New Cities

#212
"What should a city optimize for?"

I think a city needs to optimize for random interactions between diverse groups of people, which often is where that feeling of serendipity or je ne sais quoi feeling in a city comes from. There's no magic to it, you really just need to lay out your infrastructure to help allow for it.

In NYC we have it because of our public transit, mixed use/zoned buildings/neighborhoods, high density, small public parks spread out around the city, walkability, and a diversity of industries. We're losing some of that with the creation of bland spaces in the city [1], but I don't fear that NYC will lose itself anytime soon.

"How should we measure the effectiveness of a city"

It depends on the goal of the city. Are we attempting to make it a cultural capital of the world, like NYC and LA are, or a business capital like NYC and SF/SV are, or both? Or do we just care about providing a great place for people to live and work without much care for the city's perception in the world? Can it be just a nice second tier city like Boston or Seattle?

Personally, I'd aim for an NYC because there really is nothing like it in the states.

The effectiveness measures would also include some vague things, like influence of the exports of its cultural creations (art, music, fashion, tech). International desire to live or visit the city would be another metric. Then of course regular things like employment rates, educational standings, health of citizens, robustness of public transit, retention of citizens, racial/cultural/age diversity, surveyed happiness of citizens, etc.

Start with the art though. If your city doesn't produce a great diversity of culture it'll just stay a second or third tier city.

"How should citizens guide and participate in government?"

If you're building this city from the ground up you have an opportunity to immediately do away with the majority of the bureaucracy that holds most governments back. That'd encourage citizens to actually want to work with or for the government.

I'd avoid having armies of contractors and subcontractors. Create city organizations and workplaces that talented people want to work at, not stifling bureaucracies. Don't pay a consulting firm $600 million to build a payroll system that could be built by a small internal team of talented engineers, designers, and product managers. You probably will still need to pay an outside firm to, say, bore sewers and subway tunnels, but make sure the organization designing and overseeing it is staffed by talented people. That'd mean paying wages that match industry.

[1] https://aeon.co/essays/why-boring-streets-make-pedestrians-s...

Re: New Cities

#213
I've spent too many hours day dreaming about building a city from scratch in the middle of the country. An ideal spot would be around Wilson Lake in Kansas. It is almost equidistant from Denver, Oklahoma City (with a straight shot to Dallas) and Kansas City right in that sweet spot where high speed rail is more attractive than air travel. Bonus: there isn't an existing city there with existing governance.

I've always thought that if you are building a city from scratch, founding a University would be a great way to start. If you found it with strong programs in any or all of "architecture, ecology, economics, politics, technology, urban planning" then you get a major draw in that people studying these areas would be able to be instrumental in implementing them in a real way. When people are going to University is also one of the major pivot points in people's lives when they are willing to relocate.

Re: New Cities

#214

There is an example of a player of SimCity creating the optimal city which consisted of a reusable grid of components ensuring everyone had access to work and services within a reasonable distance from their homes [1]. There were a lot of assumptions that went into it - including perpetual access to water and a completely flat layout - but it at least seemed to validate the belief I have had that a city at heart simp…

Yep, what you describe is very similar to my experience of many European cities including Barcelona.

Yes, the Eixample district of Barcelona is a good example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eixample

Actually it was planned to have a lot more green space (the blocks were only supposed to have housing on two sides so as to leave the other sides unimpeded), but market forces prevailed, and all the green space is now walled off. Shame.

The district is still a lot more liveable than basically any place I've seen in North America, however.

Re: New Cities

#215
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars are also super space-wasters. They do nothing but sit for 80-90% of the time (which is one reason why car sharing is making more sense to people). In a lot of cities, especially newer ones built out since WW2, you will find a large percentage of space dedicated to parking lots. Not even necessarily parking structures (which cost a lot more per car) but just free to park flat lots, with nothing going on there.

http://cdn.slowrobot.com/524201613515576555.gif :)

It's a lovely picture, and it makes a great point. If 200 people want to get to the same place, it's far more efficient to pack them into the same vehicle going to that place.

Now what happens when those 177 cars are going to 100 different places?

Re: New Cities

#216
post #17

I think "old cities" are pretty good too: the kind where they were built for people, rather than cars, and where you could build things without a dense thicket of regulations almost entirely unrelated to safety. Another thing that seems to work well is limiting the amount of up-front large scale projects and growing incrementally. No one can plan for everything ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_pro…

Thoughtful critique / history of Smart Cities. Adam Greenfield's book 'Against the Smart City (The city is here for you to use)' is required reading for anyone interested in the topic.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18626431-against-the-smar...

Re: New Cities

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do you think so many people choose to drive their own car, when given the choice? It's just anecdotal, but in my experience most of the people I know who live in places where having a car is an actually choice don't own them at all, i.e. people who live and work in city centers. Due to the US's terrible public transportation infrastructure, however, that's not a real choice in most places. If you want to work,…

There are precious few places where you literally can't walk or bike. There are a lot of places where it's impractical to do so, because it takes too long, and so people mostly don't. That's despite the fact that walking or biking would increase throughput, because throughput isn't all that matters. I would even argue that it isn't all that important.

Do you know why it takes too long? Because it's illegal to build things that people need on a day-to-day basis near where they live in large swaths of the US.

Some people want their car-centric lifestyle, and hey, that's fine too (as long as they're paying for it); I think the problem is that it's simply not a choice for many people due to the central-planning style zoning regulations entrenched in much of the country.

Re: New Cities

#218
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would take me about an hour to walk to the nearest grocery store (not counting corner stores, because all they sell is junk food). There's a bigger issue here. Suppose the grocery store was 10 minutes away. You'd still need to drive there, because how are you going to get the food back to your house? I have lived carless and had to make many independent trips per week to buy food. Being able to do it all at once…

> I have lived carless and had to make many independent trips per week to buy food. We mostly walked or biked to the local grocery store in Italy. It led to more fresh food, as you buy stuff in smaller quantities and eat it right away. A large backpack is fine for moving stuff. It worked for our family of 4.

So...

You can't eat when you're hungry, because you don't keep food at home.

A huge portion of your week is suddenly devoted to shuttling back and forth between home and the grocery store.

And you think that's not a massive inconvenience?

Re: New Cities

#219

Since the parent felt the need to use an affiliate link, here's a direct link to The Rent Is Too Damn High - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0078XGJXO/ An amazon affiliate link to a 2.5 star book doesn't really establish confidence in someone's recommended reading list.

It’s a $3.99 kindle book written by a career political blogger. Imagine the amazon reviews as the comments on a newspaper site.

Re: New Cities

#220
post #78
post #17

I think "old cities" are pretty good too: the kind where they were built for people, rather than cars, and where you could build things without a dense thicket of regulations almost entirely unrelated to safety. Another thing that seems to work well is limiting the amount of up-front large scale projects and growing incrementally. No one can plan for everything ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_pro…

Cars have a place in cities but maybe they should be in tunnels underground or something. I view money locked up in real estate as money in a very suboptimal place. We pay too much 'rent' in general; it'd be far better to try to make housing/office space cheap and have people invest the extra money in productive assets.

Cars or bikes are great because vehicle + roads = a fairly robust network [if done well, no single points of failure].

That's not usually the case for public transit.

[Agreed about real estate. Although dense cities are very eco-friendly, it might be hard to motivate dense cities when real estate isn't super expensive. Manhattan grows upward because it's expensive to grow any other direction]

Post reply on HN