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

221–230 of 308 posts

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

#221

Post by com2kid »

0x0nyandesu wrote: post #148
com2kid wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The floor plan thing is real. A 1960s-1970s split level will have 3 bedrooms, 1.5 bathrooms, a huge living room, a good size dining room, and a kitchen, all around 1800sqft. Or, you can buy a new 2500 sqft home that has the same, plus a walk in closet in the master. Heck I've seen plenty of 3000sqft 3 bedroom homes! It is insane. Sure these new floor plans have 2 dining rooms, a breakfast nook, a living room, and a f…

I just bought a 1600 sq ft home and it's honestly too small cause both me and my wife want our PC gamer setups so we have a dedicated room for that but then I need an office too so we end up hanging out all day in literally the smallest room in the house. I'll be doing a major remodel to address this among other issues. But yea if we had a game room or a loft or something similar it would be a lot better. The apprais…

USB C or thunderbolt Hub.

Get a desktop with a thunderbolt port. Run all monitors and input devices through a hub.

Drop your work laptop into it and use that during work hours, swap 1 cable to desktop after 5. :D

But yeah 1600 can be small based on layout. I've seen some 1800sqft houses that are super spacious though. It really depends on if the architect had it together.

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

#222

Post by com2kid »

lliamander wrote: post #35
com2kid wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The floor plan thing is real. A 1960s-1970s split level will have 3 bedrooms, 1.5 bathrooms, a huge living room, a good size dining room, and a kitchen, all around 1800sqft. Or, you can buy a new 2500 sqft home that has the same, plus a walk in closet in the master. Heck I've seen plenty of 3000sqft 3 bedroom homes! It is insane. Sure these new floor plans have 2 dining rooms, a breakfast nook, a living room, and a f…

Yup, I have a 1-story, 4-bedroom, 2.5 bath, 1800sqft home in a solidly middle class neighborhood that was built around 1970. Bathrooms and closets are small relative to modern standards, but everything is well proportioned. We also have a decent yard that the kids actually use, and the exteriors aren't ugly.

The trend now days seems to be as many, or more, baths as number of bedrooms.

With the hopefully rare exception of family wide food poisoning, I fail to see the need.

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

#223

Post by short12 »

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #181
short12 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's your job to take the keys away and get rid of the car. It's a sad situation but hardly unique

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

#224

Post by dymk »

BrianHenryIE wrote: post #219
dymk wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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". This is the part that needs a study or survey to back it up. If we're just throwing around anecdotes, I've both driven a car and taken the bus in a city that was known for its mass transit, and the mass transit sucked compared to b…

You're being a contrarian. Los Angeles is famed for its motordom. Tell me, where are you from that that needs explaining? It's fascinating to meet someone from such a remote tribe.

Please don't insult me simply because I don't agree with you :)

I've lived in Sacramento, San Diego and Seattle. I've taken mass transit and driven a car in all of those cities.

In my experience, in every city, the mass transit sucked. Access to anything not on a bus line is effectively inaccessible without a car. The busses smell like urine. They don't show up on time. Mentally ill people harass me and my dog on a regular enough basis where it's more trouble than it's worth.

I love my car. I don't see it as a thing I'm forced to use, it's something I chose when given the option between it and a bus. It's a safe, climate controlled vehicle which is available at any minute of the day that I want it to be.

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

#225

Post by rdtwo »

zip1234 wrote: post #73
rdtwo wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Detached makes sense, you need to airgap for noise

Better insulation such as compressed cellulose will beat a 10 foot air gap any day.

The other problem is with shared walls you have to deal with your neighbor every time there is a shared problem. If folks are reasonable that’s not a problem but not everyone is and your reasonable neighbor might move and sell to someone that’s not at any time

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

#226

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

handmodel wrote: post #176
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in 20 or 30 or 50 or 100 year, some of our descendants will walk/drive/fly/float through it all and wonder why we never built anything to last, or anything beautiful. Beautiful and comfortable neighborhoods ARE additional resources for ourselves, our families and our communities.

Nothing is stopping you from building a castle on your property now. My guess is the difference in price is about 5-fold - and the castle will need tons of costly repairs to adapt to whatever the favored amenities are. I've lived in really old buildings. Even if the bricks on the outside were over 100 years old it was extremely expensive to update the air conditioning and windows to be a good living experience. Why t…

It's not about castles. It's about neighborhoods.

I've lived in really old buildings too. Right now, I live in an adobe house that was likely first constructed in about 1870. Growing up, I lived in some houses that were built (of stone) in the 1700s. And yes, there are problems caused by the fact that our idea of what a home/house ought to be changes over time, for lots of different reasons.

I still think we can do better than most mid-range contemporary US stick built housing, and the neighborhoods it creates.

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

#227

Post by ironmagma »

JadeNB wrote: post #183
ironmagma wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

> we look to the past for cues to good design

But by your very logic, we also look to the past for cues to bad design. There are plenty of ugly old towns and cities in the US. Regardless, the most beautiful cities in the US: New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Charleston, New Orleans, Boston, Seattle are also some of the oldest.

> there surely are good aesthetic choices being made today

With how restrictive the building and city planning codes are, the amount of creativity is extremely limited.

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

#228

Post by eggsmediumrare »

short12 wrote: post #223
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's your job to take the keys away and get rid of the car. It's a sad situation but hardly unique

It's a sad situation made worse by stupid urban planning that prioritizes cars.

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

#229

Post by Animats »

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…

I often see urbanists and young people fantasize about life in car free mega cities.

Yes.

Now go look at Peter Cooper Village in NYC.[1]

"The complex is designed as two large "superblocks", independent of the grid system that characterizes the majority of Manhattan below 155th Street.It consists of two large parks, one for each part of the complex, juxtaposed with modern red brick apartment towers."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_Town%E2%80%93Peter_...

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

#230

Post by ironman1478 »

pjlegato wrote: post #154
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.

San Francisco and New York, the most walkable and densely built urban areas in America, are famous for their extremely high rents. This is a function of extremely high demand for housing there. Apparently a whole lot of Americans _don't_ want to transport themselves by car.

You need a car in SF depending on the area you live in. On the west side, SF has very poor public transit
Post reply on HN