Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore? • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by BrianHenryIE » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 3:31 AM UTC

dymk wrote: post #224

BrianHenryIE wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

I live in Sacramento. I've been in a car twice in the past 480 days, and not a whole lot before then (living since 2017 in Carmichael, Arden, downtown and East Sac., Fair Oaks for a few weeks).

I think what you're trying to say is "people will always choose a private air-conditioned car", but I'm saying car use is artificially high because other options are not feasible. Where it is safe and comfortable (i.e. away from cars) to make most of one's journeys (under 5 or 10 miles) by other means, people choose non-car options at a higher rate than people in LA (or Sac etc) are choosing.

You are being obtuse by asking for journal references where they're not needed (this isn't a conference, it's a conversation in the comment section on a website).

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

#232

Post by Karrot_Kream » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 3:32 AM UTC

strken wrote: post #203

ohazi wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Detached no matter the cost - so close they may as well be terraced, but they'll be detached 'gah-damnit'! The difference between "so close" and "terraced" is hearing your neighbors fucking at night. No thanks. Agree with you about the shutters, though...

Through nearly a foot of solid clay bricks, you can't hear anything. My neighbours across the road with a window facing towards them are more audible than my neighbours next door. I think US homes are usually timber, so they might not block sound so well.

US soundproofing code has always been lacking because code was mostly invented to solidify single-family detached housing. For example, the 2019 California Residential Code doesn't actually mandate anything related to soundproofing, but includes an _optional_ section on soundproofing in Appendix K[1], which mandates walls and ceilings have an STC of 45, about the same insulating capabilities as a 4" brick face wall [2]. Some cities have opted into these requirements. Notably if you live in the SF Bay Area, neither San Francisco nor Berkeley mandate any soundproofing (e.g. they do _not_ mandate adherence to Appendix K), but the City of Oakland _does_. This is the real reason shared dwellings are so noisy; code doesn't care.

[1]: https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CRC2019P1/appendix-k-sound...

[2]: https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_16419.PDF

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

#233

Post by 0x0nyandesu » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 3:46 AM UTC

advael wrote: post #220

rsj_hn wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Disposable income" is not some vague philosophical term that we have to haggle over. It simply means income minus taxes paid to government. Please please don't redefine economic terms to suit your intuitive belief about what a word "should" mean because you are wading into an area where you don't know the agreed upon terminology. That impedes communication. If you want to refer to income after paying necessities, th…

I wasn't aware this was a technical term, but if we insist on this usage, the post I'm responding to is even less meaningful, because this is drawing a pedantic distinction between money that's tied up in expenses and thus, at any rate, not money that the relevant party is really making decisions about

I mean do you really want to compare my disposable income with my great grandparents? They'd hit me up side the head if they knew how much I blow on weed a month and random bullshit like latex Halloween costumes. To them eating out was a luxury they could afford maybe once or twice a year. I eat out like every other day.

Our standards are way higher these days cause the truth is we're all spoiled.

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

#234

Post by dymk » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 3:49 AM UTC

BrianHenryIE wrote: post #231

dymk wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

I live in Sacramento. I've been in a car twice in the past 480 days, and not a whole lot before then (living since 2017 in Carmichael, Arden, downtown and East Sac., Fair Oaks for a few weeks). I think what you're trying to say is "people will always choose a private air-conditioned car", but I'm saying car use is artificially high because other options are not feasible. Where it is safe and comfortable (i.e. away fr…

Look, I get we're coming at this from different viewpoints, but you can't tell me that I'm the one being obtuse after you interrogate me with some inane hypothetical about how many people I'd be comfortable with killing through my car use.

I'm asking for you to back up the claim that people in LA hate their cars, not that cars aren't the most popular form of transport there. People hate _traffic_, not their cars. I live somewhere with low traffic. Best of both worlds.

Sure, it would be great to have better public transit options in LA. But I'd wager (because we're going off of our theory of mind intuition, and not polls) that people would prefer their cars to bus transport, even in LA.

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

#235

Post by ninjin » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 4:16 AM UTC

0x0nyandesu wrote: post #204

ninjin wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not an expert on the subject, but I do not think that the explanation for most of what you see in Japan is explained by “good policing”. There was an excellent article on policing in Japan a few years back that I sadly can not remember the outlet of, but I very much remember a sentence that resonated with my experience in Japan which was along the lines of: “It is not because of the quality of its policing, but…

It's a combination of cleanliness, social responsibility, and police presence true but I've also heard what happens when there is a disturbance and it's dealt with quickly either by police or conductors. Someone begging on the train is not tolerated at all. Japanese culture views that as an unacceptable imposition by that individual on the other riders. Western culture tends to shame you in the other direction which…

Maybe we are talking past each other, but I am not so sure you “see” the causation the way it probably is (I am reluctant to call myself an authority even after nearly a decade living in Japan, so take my perspectives with a grain of salt). “Western” societies apply corrections the way you seem to ascribe them to Japan: A strong arm and stern reminder. In Japan, it is instead “soft” and more akin to the stern look your mother gave you back in the day. Begging is not something that happens, not because it is immediately clamped down upon, but because it does not happen in the first place because of “collective social restraint”.

In another comment you wrote: “I don't even want to know my neighbors exist”. Since Japan is a more collectivist society, you will be acutely aware that your neighbours exist at all times. Heck, not only your neighbours, but every individual around you at work, in public, etc. and constantly be reminded by your fellow Japanese that you better “behave” and conform according to the perceived norms or get glared at disapprovingly or – worse – even ostracised. At least to my eyes, this is where you find the source of the societal phenomena you seek – not the police or another central authority.

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

#236

Post by fgnbdfgx » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 4:21 AM UTC

0x0nyandesu wrote: post #136

scelerat wrote: post #126

I may be romanticizing it as a mere occasional visitor, but my impression of Tokyo is as a place which has managed to manage a balance of (incredible) density with livable neighborhoods. Lots of public transit, commercial districts, residential zones with small shops and groceries. Very walkable, bikeable, and even driveable if that's what you need. But within the city you seldom need to drive. I grew up in LA suburb…

The thing with Tokyo is that the cops do their jobs. A homeless person asking for money on a Tokyo subway is unheard of. I'd love something like Tokyo in the USA but it will never work because crime on American public transport is rampant. Hell just last week a women was raped on a Philly subway and no one did a thing. Adult hood in America is coming to terms with the fact that I'll never live to see this cleaned up…

>last week a women was raped on a Philly subway and no one did a thing

Technically, according to what I've read, they did do something. They recorded it.

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

#237

Post by fgnbdfgx » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 4:24 AM UTC

AussieWog93 wrote: post #163

iammisc wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No not really. Protestantism is so divorced from traditional Christianity as to be something else. Half the gospel preached is terrible new age nonsense bearing no resemblance to Christianity. If we look at more catholic countries in the Americas, the middle class neighborhoods do look nicer in my opinion. Edit: I should specify I don't believe this is specific to catholicism. Other religions also embrace beauty, lik…

Fair enough. Any Irish people reading this? Which areas are more architecturally beautiful? Catholic or Protestant?

Are you trying to start something?

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

#238

Post by robbrown451 » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 4:29 AM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #205

robbrown451 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are mistaking the word "conservative" for a political position. The parent is using it as in this definition "averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values." Steep roofs are more traditional. I'm definitely not buying the idea that asymmetrical houses are "stressful" in any meaningful way. I mean, I guess you could say anything that is interesting and non-bland is stressful, but that is qu…

Sure, my “this is unnecessarily political” radar might be off. Especially given there is a lot of angst about Trump’s decision to mandate all federal buildings follow Greco-Roman architecture (maybe the only good thing he ever did) so there is a pushback now where anything “conservative” or traditional is bad and modern is good kind of thing. I’m surely overreacting. But I’d also challenge this notion that buildings…

Yeah I didn't see the usage of "conservative" above as being a negative per se. It was only saying that the negativity expressed toward some modern architecture is very subjective.

I'll agree on your opinion on brutalist and typical suburban. Yuk to both. I like neighborhoods like many here in San Francisco, where a really modern house can be right next to a Victorian. Very close to me is this street, which is one of my favorites (let's just say I like "funky"): https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7399065,-122.4298453,3a,75y,...

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

#239

Post by BuyMyBitcoins » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 4:48 AM UTC

beowulfey wrote: post #189

Seems a lot of these comments are thinking “nice” refers to the livable sense, but the article is specifically referencing aesthetics. And then makes the argument that modern neighborhoods don’t look pleasing because there is no consistency between neighboring houses. I don’t buy this at all. There are many tracts of suburban (USA) houses where every house looks consistent and similar, with subtle differences in colo…

I remember the whole “identical suburban house with a white picket fence” being derided when I was growing up. So now this kind of sameness is encouraged?

I think at the end of the day these folks just detest suburbs and can find a flaw about them no matter what aspect they look at.

I really like your observation about craftsmanship. I think modern minimalism is a nice cop-out for cheapening out on details and mass producing the same things.

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

#240

Post by brightlancer » Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 5:22 AM UTC

handrous wrote: post #195

mc32 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me a place like hidden glen north is odd. It's a tract surrounded by soundwalls and has few exits from the development, whereas in normal developments you have intersections with all streets. This kind of development follows the thoroughfare model where smaller streets feed larger streets which feed boulevards/expressways which feed freeways. They are built in such a way the actual city neighborhood is disconnecte…

> It's a tract surrounded by soundwalls and has few exits from the development, whereas in normal developments you have intersections with all streets. I'm not sure any development built after about 1975 in my midwestern metro area isn't like this, including the sound walls if they're next to an interstate or major highway. My neighborhood, with... oh, I dunno 150houses? At least a dozen named-and-numbered streets pr…

"Crime rates go up and the homeless population shoots up, they say, when they add a bus stop next to your neighborhood."

Setting aside questions of morality, what part of that is factually incorrect?

In places where driving a car is more convenient than taking mass transit (almost everywhere in the US), mass transit is primarily used by persons who cannot afford to own a car. If a mass transit stop is added to a neighborhood which did not previously have one, that means poorer individuals and families can now live there (or visit there). There are known correlations between poverty (including homelessness) and crime, so it is logical that adding a mass transit stop will increase crime over time.

Why is that incorrect?