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

241–250 of 429 posts

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#241

Post by oil7abibi »

ef4 wrote: post #200
d--b wrote: post #126

It's always a tradeoff... - super dense cities like Tokyo or New York can feel suffocating. A lot of people can't bear it. The lack of green space, and the overcrowding of people and cars increases the stress levels by a lot. Yet, being able to walk around the city is excellent for exercising and mindfulness, it's easier to meet with people, etc. - super sparse cities (like LA or Brasilia) on the other end tend to is…

People always focus on these extreme endpoints, but to get a vibrant walkable neighborhood you don't need anything remotely close to New York or Tokyo densities. My street in Somerville, MA has a WalkScore (91) that's higher than the average score for New York city (89), yet every building in my neighborhood is detached and three stories tall. I have a back yard with grass. Not a big one, but it feels nothing like lo…

You remember an apartment fire there about a year ago by any chance?

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#242

Post by jessaustin »

jimmaswell wrote: post #136
Dirlewanger wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If density is so awful, why have malls been closing left and right for years? Why have so many people been flocking to more dense neighborhoods?

I'd guess because of the economy. The high paying/skilled jobs are there so people were forced to move. Outside of this strange vocal minority that shows up here, very few people would actually prefer to live in an urban area instead of a small town or suburb or whatever given the choice.

...very few people would actually prefer...

Based on these statements [0] of yours, how would you know what "people" prefer?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16180336

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#243

Post by abrahamepton »

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…

River North is also an unusual neighborhood in Chicago - there are dozens of walkable little downtowns in other neighborhoods across the city, but RN is an abomination and I usually try to get out of it quickly whenever I find myself there.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#244

Post by jimmaswell »

ef4 wrote: post #216
jimmaswell wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd guess because of the economy. The high paying/skilled jobs are there so people were forced to move. Outside of this strange vocal minority that shows up here, very few people would actually prefer to live in an urban area instead of a small town or suburb or whatever given the choice.

> 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…

Because a certain amount of local density is needed to support any establishment's existence. The more specialized it is, the more local population is needed to sustain it. As the middle class shrinks or other economic changes happen, the margin of this can get narrower, as shops consolidate into having less locations in denser areas. There apparently used to be a lot of full time IBM positions near where I grew up, but now those buildings are mostly abandoned.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#245

Post by 7952 »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #98

The author appears to think that optimizing for tax revenue is one of the main goals of publicly funded transportation infrastructure (a category which includes roads, sidewalks, subways, etc.) or is at least not a terrible idea. I cannot even begin to convey how much I disagree. The purpose of public funded transportation infrastructure is to make transportation cheap (in terms of time, money, frustration or any oth…

I agree that social justice is important when building transport infrastructure. Things like congestion charges in particular seem to be very unfair to poorer people. We all pay for the roads so why can't we use them?

The problem is that there is limited capacity, and limited money to build more capacity. There has to be limits placed on how people use the roads to make sure that other people also have that freedom. The same is true of pedestrians and cyclists. Sharing the capacity in a fair manner is difficult.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#246

Post by lazerpants »

weisser wrote: post #96
davidw wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boulder's a great place in many ways, but it's also what got me really interested in urbanism, and getting involved at a local level, because it is an abject failure in terms of being affordable to even middle-class people who didn't buy in 30 years ago, with average house prices somewhere around 700K or north of that. This is, in part, because they refuse to add denser areas like the downtown in more parts of the ci…

I don't disagree. Boulder does well by the people who can afford to live here but seemingly (I'm still new) does little to offer affordable options. You go around Boulder and it doesn't feel like a city — this is part of the charm and also part of the problem.

A lot of the population of Boulder doesn't even get to live areas that are especially walkable. Gunbarrel and all the neighborhoods East of 30th sort of require a car. Technically you can still bike but downtown or the campus are a long way, especially in snow or rain. And, unless it has changed, the bus doesn't run all night...

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#247

Post by Johnny555 »

goda90 wrote: post #222
xvedejas wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even from the perspective of personal preference, I think it's fair to say that, at least in the US, there is a wide variety of sparse cities for people to choose from, and only a few actually dense cities. This leaves those preferring density at a relative disadvantage. Unrelated: it's unclear to me how self-driving cars can help pollution. They're a solution to the problem of the high cost of labor, and not much el…

When the streets are only used by self driving cars, then traffic will flow much more smoothly. No accidents, no police stops, one speed, smooth computer merging. Less hard acceleration and braking, less idling, less time spent in a running vehicle by each user.

You have a lot more faith in technology than I do -- there will still be accidents, as good as self-driving cars are, they are still subject to the laws of physics and sometimes cars will run into each other or other objects or people.

We already have effectively self-driving cars with Uber and other car-sharing services, and all you need to do is go to SFO's departure level during peak travel times to see the traffic havoc that self-driving cars will bring -- too many cars and not enough curb space to drop off/pick up everyone.

When self-driving cars are cheap and plentiful then downtown streets will look the same -- self-driving cars will more than double car traffic since instead of 200 employees driving to work and parking into the parking garage (making one trip), now 1000 employees will be dropped off by their self-driving car, which will then have to drive away to park or look for the next passenger, making a second trip on already crowded streets.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#248

Post by InitialLastName »

apendleton wrote: post #77
ars wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that designing around people? First you are going to make all the people in the cars nuts because they can't find parking, so they won't come. Next all the people who find public transport tedious and slow won't come. (Yes, even the best public transport is not anywhere near as a good as a car that goes direct, and where you can actually leave your stuff in the car.) Next all the people who hate living in dens…

And yet Manhattan is an economic powerhouse, so apparently plenty of people are okay with these restrictions. If you aren't, don't live there.

Most of the areas where people actually live in New York (read: Upper Manhattan and the outer boroughs) have free street parking.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#249

Post by so33 »

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…

I feel like I have talked about cars and transit quite a bit, and everyone else has covered this down thread. But I'd like to address your other comments:

> Overcrowdedness

Again - when we are talking about increasing density we are not talking about forcing people to get rid of their car or making a sleepy suburb look like Manhattan. Townhouses, for instance, increase residential density a lot compared to the tract housing popular in American suburbs and, if well-built, have very little downside.

> very long waiting times at every establishment or government office

Maybe to line up at a nightclub or an exceptionally popular restaurant. But the beauty of increased density is choice - if a place is busy, just walk to a less busy one.

>increased ease of pickpockets etc. to "disappear into the crowd"

Notorious pickpocketing hotspots in Paris or Barcelona mainly prey on tourists who are confused and disoriented and jet lagged. Keeping aware of your belongings at all times will greatly lower your chance of being pickpocketed. Also, I'd argue that if a crime occurs in a less dense area, there might not be anyone else who was there to witness or report the crime.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#250

Post by bluGill »

chc wrote: post #195
xvedejas wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even from the perspective of personal preference, I think it's fair to say that, at least in the US, there is a wide variety of sparse cities for people to choose from, and only a few actually dense cities. This leaves those preferring density at a relative disadvantage. Unrelated: it's unclear to me how self-driving cars can help pollution. They're a solution to the problem of the high cost of labor, and not much el…

Isn't this pretty much true by definition, though? People who want density will tend to all go to the same relatively few places (that's how you get density), whereas people who want to avoid density will go to different places (because if they all went to the same place it would become dense).

Most people have much more complex wants and density if at best a small part of the picture.

People want the best of all worlds. I want to own 100 acres (for my pet goats - even though I don't have the time to care for them I want them). I want my kid's school to be a most 200 meters from my front door (with a playground). I want my office, church, a dozen restaurants, and 30 other retail stores to be at most 500 meters from my front door. I'm not rich enough to afford that though so I have to compromise. Even if I was that rich, it is not possible for more than 2 people rich enough to afford that to live within 1000 meters of each other, and to support that requires thousands of not rich people living in 1000 meters.

People will choose a walkable neighborhood when they think it is a good compromise. Some valuable large livestock more than others and so will be late to move to the walkable city. Others want to spend their free time at the theater and will move to the walkable neighborhood early just because it is the fastest way to bed after the late night show. Most people are not so into either choice that one answer is obvious.

If you want a walkable neighborhood to work you need to fix the local schools. At least in the US most walkable neighborhoods are old areas of town where the schools are bad, those who want children feel compelled to move to the suburbs and the car lifestyle just because of how much better the schools are.

If you want walkable neighborhoods you need to fix zoning so that it is possible for them to happen. Strongtowns has a lot of analysis of what makes it possible - there are thousands of subtle things required, heavy handed efforts tend to leave a lot of the subtle problems in place.

Post reply on HN