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

231–240 of 429 posts

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#231

Post by so33 »

ams6110 wrote: post #188
weisser wrote: post #83

I live in Boulder and attribute much of the quality of life here to walkable (and bikeable) streets. We have hundreds of miles of multi-use paths that are used extensively for getting around and for recreation. Our main road downtown has a pedestrian mall for a number of blocks that keeps traffic away and lends itself to street performers, community events, and a generally calming atmosphere. Downtown parking lots ar…

> multi-use paths that are used extensively Is that really true? I live in a smaller version of Boulder. University town, we have a walkable downtown, trails and paths, and yes you see people using them. But the reality is that it's a tiny, tiny fraction of the people who live here. Same with buses. There are a few routes that service big apartment complexes and go too and from campus. Those get used. The others driv…

>feel-good-ism

Trails and paths are considered (or should be considered) part of a city's recreation system as well. Chances are that the trail and bike path was converted from railway right-of-way meaning it was built for fairly cheap. I'd argue that even if a trail wasn't used for commuting it has served another purpose: to make people feel good.

Also, there's a lot of reasons why people might not bike to work; a lack of biking infrastructure is just one of those reasons.

>Same with buses. There are a few routes that service big apartment complexes and go too and from campus. Those get used. The others drive around empty, or with a few people on them.

One goal of public transportation is to provide a mobility alternative to private car ownership for those who, for whatever reason, can't drive (or bike, or walk). For those relatively few people, a bus that runs every half-hour or so is much more useful than a bus that only runs twice in the morning and evening. But it's likely they depend on it. So yes, a lot of bus routes will be empty by design. It's a lot like how Amtrak uses popular routes like the Acela to subsidize train routes to very small towns.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#232

Post by jessaustin »

jimmaswell wrote: post #37
crispyambulance wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That concept has already been implemented. Urban planners who practice it call it "new urbanism". It has been a mixed bag, but is better than the "malls-connected-by-highways" approach of many suburban development s.

Too much density decreases the quality of life. Overcrowdedness, very long waiting times at every establishment or government office, increased ease of pickpockets etc. to "disappear into the crowd", higher prices. You already see all this in many existing cities; you want that, but worse? I'll take malls connected by highways over that any day. Malls are nice and cars are a better experience than transit/walking in…

Have you been to a mall recently? One that isn't dying? Where is it?

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#234

Post by lstyls »

rm999 wrote: post #206
reaperducer wrote: post #3

This is something that certain cities have understood for many years. Chicago, for example, mandates that all new development from a simple three-story building to a 100-story skyscraper has retail at its base to improve the walkability of its streets and make its business corridors vibrant. This also helps push down retail rents even in the CBD, allowing local upstart businesses a shot at reaching the masses. Chicag…

Weird - I visited Chicago a couple years ago from NYC and was shocked at how pedestrian-unfriendly central parts of Chicago seemed (e.g. River North). There were parking lots everywhere , with aggressive drivers pulling in and out. I walked through a parking lot to go to a liquor store and was almost run over. Sometimes crossing a large street felt like a race against the green light. Jaywalking signaled to drivers t…

This makes sense to me. Street-level retail != walkability. Anyone who has tried to walk from a suburban stripmall to another right next door can attest to this.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#235

Post by roymckenzie »

emodendroket wrote: post #32
roymckenzie wrote: post #26

Lol America. Where walkable streets are justified by economics and not humanities.

A lot of people enjoy their quiet suburban neighborhoods and don't have any particular desire to live in a dense city so to convince them these guys need to start talking about dire economic consequences.

Lol

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#236

Post by twobyfour »

bluGill wrote: post #208
zpallin wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even better, look at Hong Kong. Almost every single high rise has a mall at the bottom with a dim sum restaurant.

Note that you said high rise. A 2 story building with half dedicated to retail has too much retail in general (in some specific situations it might make sense, but if every building did that there simply isn't enough need for retail space). However a 100 story building with only one floor retail needs more retail space to satisfy the residents' needs.

That also depends on the location. In a residential neighborhood, that might be too much retail, but in Times Square it might be appropriate. There are walkable low-rise neighborhoods in Queens where the main drag is all 1-3 story buildings with retail in the ground (and sometimes second) floor and sometimes apartments above the retail. Meanwhile, around the corner are entire all-residential blocks. This works and is still walkable because getting from all-residential to retail is just a quick walk around the corner.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#237

Post by davidw »

closeparen wrote: post #228
davidw wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's one of the Market Urbanism ( http://marketurbanism.com/ ) guys, so a bit more on the libertarian edge of things, but it's a good point in any event: cargo cult urbanism is probably better than "suburban experiment" urbanism, but flexibility and adaptability are even better. Edit - one of the really cool things about the growing movement that - broadly - includes YIMBY's, Market Urbanists, Strong Towns and so on…

Pretty sure progressives are strongly aligned on opposition to any housing construction unless it’s specifically set aside for low-income residents, and are okay with low density zoning as an anti-gentrification measure. YIMBYism is more center-left than progressive.

It's kind of a grab bag. Some people get it, some don't. Same on the right - some are aghast at the idea of poor people moving into their neighborhood, others are more "ok, freer markets, that's cool!".

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#238

Post by chc »

stale2002 wrote: post #196
_m8fo wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This isn't particularly a benefit of high-density cities. I work in a fairly low-density city, but some of my coworkers still live close to work. My mom grew up in a small southern town in the '60s, and my impression is that many people there lived pretty close to work.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#239

Post by supplied_demand »

jimmaswell wrote: post #197
supplied_demand wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 t…

It increases rent because it is unused half the time and takes up land that could be used for other things like housing. This limits the supply of land and increases property costs, thus increasing rents.

>If you buy a house, plan around it depreciating.

Unless the country expands or population stops growing there is a limit on the supply of land in the US. It is safe to assume a steady increase in property values over time. Certainly not 90s and early 2000s level, but steady. Even with the recession, housing prices have continued to climb in the US.

Waiting on public transit is definitely a drawback in many places (not in my city), but things like more frequent buses are something we could have if we adjusted priorities as a nation.

You seem to have made good economic decisions (specifically on your car purchase) and should be applauded for that. What I question is a society that explicitly encourages car driving over other forms of transit. This encourages people to make poor economic decisions (ex: car loans, maintenance, depreciation, insurance) because they need a car to survive in our built environment. I do not mean to question your personal decisions.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#240

Post by ef4 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #225
ef4 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Outside of this strange vocal minority that shows up here, very few people would actually prefer to live in an urban area If that was really true it would create a huge arbitrage opportunity for people to make billions of dollars by building their businesses out in cheaper areas. > The high paying/skilled jobs are there Yes, but the question is why? If most people don't want to be in cities as you say, that would a…

> If that was really true it would create a huge arbitrage opportunity for people to make billions of dollars by building their businesses out in cheaper areas. If the desirable employees, and the capitalists who want to actively oversee their investments weren't already in the more expensive areas, or if there weren't costs to both associated with regular travel or relocation (which taken together negates the short…

> If the desirable employees, and the capitalists who want to actively oversee their investments weren't already in the more expensive areas

Most of those people were out in cheaper areas 40 years ago, when suburbia was still ascendant. So "they just happen to already be there" doesn't explain what we observe today.

> or if there weren't costs to both associated with regular travel

That is just restating why walkable cities are nice to be in: travel has costs, being close to things means less travel.

> if jobs moving to the new place wouldn't actually turn it into a more expensive, denser place

That clearly didn't actually happen when the jobs first migrated to the suburbs. The suburbs remained suburbs. The jobs were in low density office parks.

Post reply on HN