New Cities • Hacker News Board

Re: New Cities

#261

Post by Nav_Panel » Mon, Jun 27, 2016, 6:27 PM UTC

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #26

There is an example of a player of SimCity creating the optimal city which consisted of a reusable grid of components ensuring everyone had access to work and services within a reasonable distance from their homes [1]. There were a lot of assumptions that went into it - including perpetual access to water and a completely flat layout - but it at least seemed to validate the belief I have had that a city at heart simp…

I agree with your point but I have one nitpick.

> unlike the American expectation that city centers feature enormous skyscrapers that pack people like sardines

Most skyscrapers in Manhattan at least are either for commercial use or feature large apartments/luxury condos (designed to solicit foreign investment). Average urban joe working a nebulous media job does not live in a skyscraper, although they may work in one.

People in NYC are "packed like sardines" into similar 3-6 story low-rise row houses just like in many European cities. This is because NYC was built up prior to many now-standard zoning regulations, so it follows a more similar pattern to older European cities.

The issue is affordability -- apartments near my office would cost 3x or more per month than where I currently live. How does Rome handle this?

Re: New Cities

#262

Post by anjneymidha » Mon, Jun 27, 2016, 6:27 PM UTC

One of the only places in my recent experience that has managed to capture the opportunity of SF with the quality of life of Singapore, is Shenzhen.

Re: New Cities

#263

Post by robotresearcher » Mon, Jun 27, 2016, 6:28 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #218

davidw wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have lived carless and had to make many independent trips per week to buy food. We mostly walked or biked to the local grocery store in Italy. It led to more fresh food, as you buy stuff in smaller quantities and eat it right away. A large backpack is fine for moving stuff. It worked for our family of 4.

So... You can't eat when you're hungry, because you don't keep food at home. A huge portion of your week is suddenly devoted to shuttling back and forth between home and the grocery store. And you think that's not a massive inconvenience?

It would be inconvenient to drive the American suburban minivan in traffic to the megamart on 5 acres of parking lot 3 miles outside a suburban sprawl, yes.

But for a large fraction of the world, it's more like this:

1. Step off bus you took home from city center job, having decided dinner recipe on the ride.

2. Buy fresh produce from independent grocery store on same block as bus stop.

3. Walk remaining 2.5 blocks home.

Re: New Cities

#264

Post by zephjc » Mon, Jun 27, 2016, 6:28 PM UTC

gervase wrote: post #113

ars wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> built for people, rather than cars I wish people would stop with this drivel. There are PEOPLE in the cars. The cities are built for people. A car is a human amplifier - it takes human transportation and carrying ability and amplifies it. A lot of people find this amplification very very useful (parents with children, elderly, people who buy in bulk, etc, etc). Taking it away would be like removing computers becaus…

I think this is a valid point, in that it serves as the other side of the coin to the arguments of your parent poster. Other than transportation and carrying ability, cars also amplify things like consumption of energy, physical space, and so on. I think this is probably why the question in the original article, "What should a city optimize for?", is really the MOST important one to answer. If your goal is to keep ho…

> "What should a city optimize for?"

For people. What's the point of even building something for human habitation if making it a good place for people isn't put first?

Re: New Cities

#265

Post by ismail » Mon, Jun 27, 2016, 6:28 PM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #189

ars wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> built for people, rather than cars I wish people would stop with this drivel. There are PEOPLE in the cars. The cities are built for people. A car is a human amplifier - it takes human transportation and carrying ability and amplifies it. A lot of people find this amplification very very useful (parents with children, elderly, people who buy in bulk, etc, etc). Taking it away would be like removing computers becaus…

Indeed. With a car, in a place designed for cars, I can go from ideation to grocery store or department and back inside of half an hour. In a place "designed for people" where neither homes nor stores have parking, such an errand consumes an entire afternoon. (Walk to bus stop, wait for bus, take bus to train, wait for train, ride train, walk, etc. Though I suppose it's easier if you can afford to live a short walk f…

The assumption here is without cars cities would be laid out exactly the same. What if there were by laws that every high rise above x floors has y retail space on the ground floor. In this case most of your daily needs would be serviced by a trip down. Once a week/month you may go to a larger store.

Re: New Cities

#266

Post by niftich » Mon, Jun 27, 2016, 6:30 PM UTC

This is low-tech, but have we considered surveying a large number of people with these two questions:

- Why are you living in this city/metropolitan area, as opposed to some other city?

- Why are you living in this particular dwelling, as opposed to a different dwelling in the same city?

I hypothesize that most people will perceive objectively positive outcomes as a result of their choice, while objectively negative outcomes as a result of necessity ie. factors external to their free choice. This would imply that the most negatively affected population anywhere is also the least mobile to relocate, for factors that are often, but not solely economical. Many of the non-economic ideas behind "New Cities" won't help these people, albeit some of the infrastructure and public transit proposals would enable them to better participate in the local economy.

Re: New Cities

#267

Post by rvense » Mon, Jun 27, 2016, 6:30 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #182

curryst wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Changing the way cars function inside the city is only part of what would need to change. Near me things just aren't laid out well for pedestrians. It would take me about an hour to walk to the nearest grocery store (not counting corner stores, because all they sell is junk food). Biking should be much shorter, though I can't say I've ever tried. We would need to stop the trend of having a small number of large store…

> It would take me about an hour to walk to the nearest grocery store (not counting corner stores, because all they sell is junk food). There's a bigger issue here. Suppose the grocery store was 10 minutes away. You'd still need to drive there, because how are you going to get the food back to your house? I have lived carless and had to make many independent trips per week to buy food. Being able to do it all at once…

I live in the centre of a largish city in Europe. Here there's a few supermarkets less than five minutes away on foot, and the last one closes at ten every day of the week. They're also on the way to and from most other places I go. Usually I just buy what I need for tonight and tomorrow on my way home, or go after dinner when I'm likely to want a quick walk anyway.

Of course, I don't have kids and am generally not a very busy person, so it might not work for everyone.

Re: New Cities

#268

Post by kome » Mon, Jun 27, 2016, 6:30 PM UTC

I like how Y Combinator takes classical sociological questions, and they pretend to look for the solution. They seem to have a "final boss" approach to social science...

Aren't urbanists, sociologists and architects working exactly on the same questions since forever? The idea that a new study can find a new “disruptive” solution is naive at best, or dangerous at worst. But, of course, I welcome more money to social science. Those questions are well worth study...

Re: New Cities

#269

Post by jtuente » Mon, Jun 27, 2016, 6:31 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #187

baybal2 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Green arrow is an additional traffic light signal that lets right turn on red. It is usually computer controlled in big Russian cities

Being able to turn right on a red is the default in the US. (many intersections are posted as no right turn on red though)

In the majority of intersections that I've driven (in the midwest) with no right turn on red, there is an obvious obstruction to see fast moving cars passing through the intersection.

Also, in some areas with many one-way streets it is legal to make a left-turn on red from one one-way street to another.

Re: New Cities

#270

Post by BenoitEssiambre » Mon, Jun 27, 2016, 6:31 PM UTC

This is a great idea and has potential to help with the problem of overcrowded urban centers.

It is impossible to keep adding people to the same space while giving everybody much room for their money. Trying to cram a generation of millennials into the same area as a wealthy cohort of boomers and rich immigrants predictably makes home prices go up.

All the ways of lowering property prices usually imply killing the economy and putting people out of work. Home prices usually end up going down only because people are made not to be able to afford them. This is incredibly destructive and it only allows more people to live in the same space when they are forced to move in with their parents.

Increasing supply or nudging the new generation to go in areas with more potential for spacial growth not only allows the new community to be built to the image of its own people but building and growing the infrastructure of a new neighborhood or revitalizing a dying town creates jobs for the people that go there. These jobs would be filled by people who can actually afford to live where they work and potentially profit from property value growth with less chance of a bubble pop because prices would not be starting from so high

The best thing governments could do to help with this situation would be to encourage some of the institutions and jobs relevant to new generations to move out of overpriced, overcrowded centers. They could foster jobs creation in centers with more low cost space and less chance of spacial overload. They could maybe move some public jobs there to help jump start the migration. This would also put some downward pressure on the prices in overcrowded places until we reach some kind of equilibrium.

I say stop trying to cram everyone in the same volume. Let the older rich generation keep the expensive quarters they've spent their life building and allow new generations to create our own communities, in our own space, from choices guided guided our own tastes.

Any solution that doesn't help spread jobs out to cheaper less overcrowded regions are going to hit the volumetric limits of the laws of physics eventually.