Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#211

Post by Naritai » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 9:19 AM UTC

snuxoll wrote: post #124

aclimatt wrote: post #32

Not the crux of the article, but: > This doesn't mean that they, or the even higher-cost, more congested coastal metros, will adopt Manhattan or Tokyo-style density and transit patterns. Instead, Austin and San Antonio might be the new Houston and Dallas. My goodness, can we /please/ stop this false dichotomy that a city either has to be a Tokyo megalopolis or a suburban sprawlfest? I don't think any reasonable perso…

As somebody who literally lives in Boise I think my city is a shining example of poor urban planning, our public transit system is ill equipped to properly service our population which is spread out far too thin making it economically challenging to do so; at the same time we live in a fish bowl of a valley and nasty inversions are becoming more frequent as more cars get on the road every year due to our growing popu…

It's too bad, really, because as you say Boise is quite beautiful. But yeah, there was no plan for handling population growth. Too many people wanted to leave out by Eagle / Nampa, but work in downtown or at Micron. And of course there is absolutely no way to get anywhere except by car.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#212

Post by cimmanom » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 9:29 AM UTC

adventured wrote: post #169

lev99 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most people have been to Times Square A lot of people have been to Times Square, but I doubt most United States voters have.

50 million Americans visit NYC each year. Times Square is a marquee draw for tourists. There are ~150 million (134m in the last Presidential election) active American voters. They tilt older and financially better off, which is also the combination that is most likely to have a substantial travel history. I'd bet on the majority of active US voters - 75m+ - having visited Times Square at least once in their lifetimes…

Where did you get that 50M number? That sounds more like the total number of tourists altogether, only a fraction of whom are Americans.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#213

Post by mayniac » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 9:30 AM UTC

CalRobert wrote: post #194

aclimatt wrote: post #32

Not the crux of the article, but: > This doesn't mean that they, or the even higher-cost, more congested coastal metros, will adopt Manhattan or Tokyo-style density and transit patterns. Instead, Austin and San Antonio might be the new Houston and Dallas. My goodness, can we /please/ stop this false dichotomy that a city either has to be a Tokyo megalopolis or a suburban sprawlfest? I don't think any reasonable perso…

The problem now, is that surburbanites vote. Suburbanites, for reasons I can't fathom, have been getting a free, bonus, car-house that comes with the big suburban house, free of charge! This car-house isn't fancy. It's just a plot of asphalt. But they get one, free of charge, * By their office * In the grocery store * Even right next to the train station in the most baffling example of all (Park and Ride) And because…

>I'm not sure how to fix this.

I don't think it's possible.

Maybe you can build more amenities close to where people live, and stop people using cars as much as they do. Maybe you can build public transport services more in low income areas where car ownership is lower, and people will have some way of moving around. But having lived and travelled in Europe my entire life and visiting America for the first time last year, I was honestly shocked at how car-centric every single thing was. I spent more time in my rental car than I did out of it. I couldn't find a tenth of the businesses I'm used to having within walking distance of every flat I've rented in London and every hotel I've stayed at in Europe.

And the biggest problem with the car-centric focus on city planning is that the majority of every city just seems dead. Las Vegas for me just died the second you stepped off the strip. Los Angeles died the second you walk a block away from the touristy bits. European cities which aren't built around cars have people walking around in almost every suburb, taking the car out for grocery shopping or going to the bank puts you in the minority in a lot of places.

I really don't think it's fixable in America within a generation, the automobile lobby has decisively won.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#214

Post by StudentStuff » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 9:30 AM UTC

nikofeyn wrote: post #97

pm90 wrote: post #67

This article misses an option I've seen used by the city which I live in: Austin, TX. Instead of building a serious mass transit system, the city encouraged the greenfield development of high density urban clusters outside the downtown region. So the companies moving in now have option to be located in the Downtown or the "New Downtown" (called the Domain). I think this has been a very successful strategy. But it dep…

i think you’re being generous calling austin’s city development and urban design even a “strategy”. austin for a long time didn’t want to grow at all, so they did everything to basically discourage it. then growth was forced on the city, and they’ve had to scramble to try, unsuccessfully, to catch up. that’s why there’s a double decker highway that doesn’t really help the traffic, an expensive highway that goes aroun…

The train is expensive cause no one bothered to land bank for it, ditto for the freeways running through people's backyards. The lack of planning I saw when I visited Austin was astounding, but it is cultural at this point.

Just look at transit in Austin, its nearly a mile to get to a damn bus stop from the Apple campus, and even at peak service is spotty and extremely slow. Busses need to have priority, and be set up to feed your rail system (which is extremely small and needs serious expansion). The current system in Austin will never approach 70% ridership like Seattle or anywhere near it without major changes.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#215

Post by cimmanom » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 9:31 AM UTC

maxsilver wrote: post #128

closeparen wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Manhattan considered a mistake? I ask because, despite being one of the most desirable residences and tourist destinations in the world, everyone is deathly allergic to even the slightest hint that someone might want to replicate it elsewhere. Am I missing an unspoken “never again” moment? Is everyone who travels to New York doing it to revel in their hatred of the place? There’s not nearly enough Manhattan to mee…

> Is Manhattan considered a mistake It's not so much a 'mistake' as it is an instant feeling of "no living thing could ever afford Manhattan". It's like a physical manifestation of the saying, "no one ever goes there anymore, it's too crowded". > (Manhattan is) one of the most desirable residences and tourist destinations in the world, everyone is deathly allergic to even the slightest hint that someone might want to…

Whereas the truth is that the only way to bring rent and home prices down where demand outstrips supply and space is limited is to build higher.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#216

Post by StudentStuff » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 9:34 AM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #70

StudentStuff wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? A plumber or electrician can earn more than that even in rural areas, I wouldn't consider $60k to be upper middle class.

Huh? Why do you define upper middle class so as to exclude the trades? Trades are frequently lucrative enough to place tradespeople in the income percentile required to reach upper middle class, especially if you own your own business, as many tradespeople do.

I was trying to point out that $60k for skilled people of any type is absurdly low and not worthy of being called upper middle class, by pointing out two skilled trades that are commonly needed and well compensated significantly in excess of $60k/yr across the US.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#217

Post by quark33 » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 9:51 AM UTC

One aspect the article ignores specific to Boise is the increase in enrollment and reputation of Boise State University.

There have been numerous studies showing how universities in small towns can drive economic growth such as this one from economists from Stanford. https://tomprof.stanford.edu/posting/1381

As higher quality human capital moves to the city, they are more likely to accept jobs and stay in the area, which could be driving the growth of the young adults living and working in the city.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#218

Post by gambiting » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 10:05 AM UTC

AlphaSite wrote: post #191

mcguire wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. I can recognize the advantages of such a neighborhood, but about 25 years ago, I decided I can't handle listening to my neighbor's stereo at 2:30 in the morning.

Then live in a modern building with real sound proofing, not something built 60 years ago, when it was t even on people’s minds.

Maybe it's reversed in US, but I find the exact opposite here in UK - a house from 1930s will offer much better sound insulation that any new build with its cardboard-thin walls separating properties.

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#219

Post by baybal2 » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 10:14 AM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #89

aclimatt wrote: post #32

Not the crux of the article, but: > This doesn't mean that they, or the even higher-cost, more congested coastal metros, will adopt Manhattan or Tokyo-style density and transit patterns. Instead, Austin and San Antonio might be the new Houston and Dallas. My goodness, can we /please/ stop this false dichotomy that a city either has to be a Tokyo megalopolis or a suburban sprawlfest? I don't think any reasonable perso…

Is Manhattan considered a mistake? I ask because, despite being one of the most desirable residences and tourist destinations in the world, everyone is deathly allergic to even the slightest hint that someone might want to replicate it elsewhere. Am I missing an unspoken “never again” moment? Is everyone who travels to New York doing it to revel in their hatred of the place? There’s not nearly enough Manhattan to mee…

>Is Manhattan considered a mistake? I ask because, despite being one of the most desirable residences and tourist destinations in the world, everyone is deathly allergic to even the slightest hint that someone might want to replicate it elsewhere. Am I missing an unspoken “never again” moment? Is everyone who travels to New York doing it to revel in their hatred of the place?

No

Manhattan is somewhat good, but has deficiencies:

1. Public sanitation there should at least be better than that in China...

2. Spacing in between buildings can be larger. Or it, better to say, the ratio of public space in between buildings and the building area should be larger. I like the idea "a lot of tall buildings with a lot of space in between" - Vancouver Coal Harbour and Yaletown are good examples.

3. Too much old buildings. Rules for mandatory "renovate or bulldoze" for old buildings.

4. Streets and sidewalks can be wider.

5. Elevated walkways will be a good idea.

6. District steam system can be changed to district heating, as a more safe alternative.

7. Public transport licensing should be liberalized.

8. Restrictions on building height, and land plot to height ratio should be struck down.

9. Brooklyn bridge can be replaced with something newer and fancier.

10. Architectural norms should be less strict, allow for more avantgarde designs

Re: Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise

#220

Post by spicymaki » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 10:20 AM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #114

closeparen wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Manhattan considered a mistake? I ask because, despite being one of the most desirable residences and tourist destinations in the world, everyone is deathly allergic to even the slightest hint that someone might want to replicate it elsewhere. Am I missing an unspoken “never again” moment? Is everyone who travels to New York doing it to revel in their hatred of the place? There’s not nearly enough Manhattan to mee…

A lot of Americans are old enough to remember the significant rise in urban crime rates from the 60s to the 90s. Manhattan was a poster child for crime, drug abuse, urban decay, and corrupt government/police. Obviously it's much better today, but the image has stuck. And to be fair, the image was mostly accurate at the time. Liberals were so fed up with it they were actually willing to vote for Rudy Giuliani.

I grew up in NYC in that era. Many people forget that the reason for the city’s problems was that it almost went bankrupt due to an exodus to the suburbs in the 60s.