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

251–260 of 429 posts

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#251

Post by dragonwriter »

ef4 wrote: post #240
dragonwriter wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> That clearly didn't actually happen when the jobs first migrated to the suburbs.

Yes, they did; not so much in terms of density, but the suburbs that had substsntial local quality jobs rather than being bedroom communities for more distant urban areas (or other other suburbs) did become substantially more expensive (as is expected, because convenient location to work is something people value), and, conversely, when jobs have moved away (including in the return to cities) they've gotten less expensive.

There's also the fact that major cities tend to be located in places which are geographically conducive to physically supporting largee numbers of people and large volumes of material trade, and even if an industry doesn't itself need or produce lots of physical goods directly, it often supports or is supported by others that do, and, in any case, the ability to support people effects the economics of moving jobs.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#252

Post by chc »

wonder_er wrote: post #152
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…

If you advocate for this kind of city to be built, despite not actually wanting to live there yourself, then all the people in your city who want this kind of city will move there, leaving more space for you. The US has a shocking amount of uniformity in it's building styles, because most people don't want to live in the dense environment that is advocated in the article. I wish the people that didn't want to live in…

Dense cities already exist. People already live there. The OP even contains examples. As far as I can tell, what people are advocating for is to make existing cities harder (or impossible) to get around in when you're not on foot. I think that's why this meets with opposition.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#253

Post by jimmaswell »

jessaustin wrote: post #232
jimmaswell wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The Galleria at Crystal Run in Middletown, NY, the Poughkeepsie Gallerie in Poughkeepsie, NY, the Newburgh Mall in Newburgh, NY, and the Palisades Mall in West Nyack, NY are all some that I've been to either within the past months or few years and they were all doing fine.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#254

Post by tantivy »

nostromo wrote: post #41
Zenst wrote: post #25

I love wide pavements as a pedestrian, alas London is in the grip of a cycle paths fetish and in many instances, they eat up pavements with some cases reducing pedestrian access and seen some which have reduced the pedestrian area to one foot due to the oversight of sheltered bus stops consuming the other side of the pavement. I'm not against cycle paths and indeed for them, but not when they erode away pedestrian ac…

That's true in Seattle right now too. The city has been building bicycle lanes all around the city -- and yet cycling is down as a percent of commuters for the fifth straight year in a row. We could have dedicated that space to larger sidewalks and greener boulevards, instead of sparsely populated bicycle lanes. (Like London, we don't have great weather -- and we also have lots of steep hills. But city planners keep…

Cycling dropping as a share of commuters doesn't tell you that fewer people are cycling. There are also more commuters. Seattle has been rapidly growing, and I'd guess that most new arrivals won't immediately take up cycling in a city that's unfamiliar to them. Building bicycle infrastructure makes cycling more inviting and less stressful for inexperienced riders, which helps shift the balance over time, especially as the network itself strengthens and coverage improves.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#255

Post by IWeldMelons »

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…

The best urban environments I've lived in so far are the ones in the ex-USSR. They had moderate amount of street retail, not too much, but were very walkable. Today, in the area around me they began retrofitting the lowest levels of the condo buildings with cafeterias and such and it is becoming too busy, too messy and uncomfortable the people who lives in these buildings. Generally, what you need is not a retail in every building, but smaller size stand-alone stores and strip malls, in bigger numbers. Also, American condo buildings rarely have separation lawns between the street and buildings themselves, sidewalks are extremely narrow and not asphalted (asphalt is much nicer to walk on and prevents the grass shoots from poking through the pavement), the whole city blocks layouts are bad (no courtyards, playgrounds inside, all have traffic going through them - unsafe for children).

TL,DR: If you want to get a nice, family friendly, comfortable urban environments -check the former USSR and the other Eastern Block countries.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#256

Post by sgc »

criddell wrote: post #157
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…

A developer friend told me that one of his biggest problems are accounting related. I probably have this wrong, but I think he was saying that if he has commercial tenants, everything can be depreciated over 20 years. If the building is residential, then the depreciation schedule is 30 years. When you have a building that contains a mix of the two, it gets complicated.

27.5 residential and 39 commercial, but the problem remains. It isn't that big of a deal. Creating different depreciation schedules for different items on a property should be done no matter what (fences are 5 years, for example).

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#257

Post by maxxxxx »

davidw wrote: post #226
maxxxxx wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prices would level out if other towns would also work on becoming more attractive. It seems Americans are conditioned to build towns that are mainly used to drive through and not live there.

This book discusses why that's easier said than done: http://amzn.to/2BbEYoV There are 'network effects' at least in terms of jobs and that environment. You'd have to convince a bunch of VC's to move to wherever along with a bunch of tech workers.

I think the case of Boulder it was first a nice place that then attracted companies.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#258

Post by chc »

trgn wrote: post #217
jimmaswell wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to know what it's supposed to amount to. Talking to people randomly on the street or on the bus?

Pretty much like a Normal Rockwell painting. A community near to you and all the advantages that come with it. - The ability to just stop by a neighbor for a drink or a chat - Somebody to give your house keys to while you're on vacation, without inconveniencing them since they live so close - Being able to call your doctor off hours in an emergency because you have a personal relation beyond your yearly visit - The g…

This seems to imply that most people in the US don't already have many neighbors within walking distance. I don't think that's the case at all, even in the sprawliest of suburbs. For most people, if you don't stop by your neighbor's house for a drink or a chat, or you don't have anyone nearby you can give your house keys to, it's because of lack of interest on one or both of your parts — not because you can't conveniently reach their door. Changing street layouts won't fix a problem that doesn't stem from street layouts.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#259

Post by brandnewlow »

praneshp wrote: post #168
0x4f3759df wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not know that about Chicago amazing. I think its interesting how people complain loudly if they lose a stretch of beach, but don't seem to complain if a stretch of the street becomes a blight for the next 100 years (or the life of the building)

If you have a chance to go to Chicago, try taking a couple of architecture tours, preferably one on the river and one on the roads. They're easily worth the money, and explain how Chicago's planning is done.

Agreed. The river boat tours are very well done and unique. I lived there for years without doing one and have been twice since on return visits.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#260

Post by beat »

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 more complicated than that. The recent Minneapolis mayoral race had housing policy as a major issue, and Minneapolis is nothing if not progressive.

Affordability and gentrification are interrelated, but so is quality. I live in a relatively low-density neighborhood of mostly 80-110 year old houses. Lately, we're getting new development in the form of cheap older rentals being torn down, and large-for-the-lots (typical lots are 1/10 acre) new houses being built. These new houses are considerably more expensive than neighborhood average. My above-average house is worth about $300, but a new house two blocks away just sold for $475k before construction was completed. So I have concerns. On the other hand, that new house replaced a run-down rental. A lot of these old houses simply have worn-out bones and will never be good again. Left on their own, they'll contribute to the neighborhood drifting "bad", with cheap rentals.

And developers? There's no money in building "affordable" housing. They'll build upscale if they can, because it's much more profitable.

What do I want? A better neighborhood, yes, but one where the people who already live here can continue to afford to live here.

Post reply on HN