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

261–270 of 429 posts

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#261

Post by bluGill »

jimmaswell wrote: post #124
supplied_demand wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Malls are nice and cars are a better experience than transit/walking in every facet This isn't even remotely true. You are forgetting the time spent finding a parking spot, the opportunity cost of having a parking lot instead of more housing or commercial space, transit/walking also provides exercise, which matters in an epidemically obese society. This doesn't even get into the pollution aspect of driving or the co…

>time spent finding a parking spot Not a lot of time at all in my experience, certainly less than waiting for public transit or an uber to arrive. >opportunity cost To me it's worth it. >exercise You walk inside the mall. And what about people with certain disabilities? Do they get left out of this walking-only city? >pollution Emissions are improving all the time, and electric cars are on the rise. >depreciating ass…

You are comparing the wrong thing. When you are in a walkable area most of the things you want to get to are closer than the distance that you walk form your car to the store in the mall.

When there are 2 good restaurants on your block, and a small grocery store: you don't need to go to the mall anymore.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#262

Post by jimmaswell »

com2kid wrote: post #202
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…

Malls typically lack quality local retailers. Local artists renting out a store front to sell their works, local gyms, martial arts studios, dance studios, that small store stuffed to the brim with cute little decor items, clothing stores for local fashion designers, and of course small restaurants. Malls have none of those. Maybe a couple local jewelers, and everything else is large nation wide (or regional) chains.…

I've seen small local coffee shops and small restaurants do fine in malls. Especially "mini malls" which have a lot more variety on that front.

Some of the parking lots by where I lived were used for flea markets on the weekends. Regardless, I think parking lots sprinkled with islands containing trees/greenery make the landscape look nicer than if that area were packed full of buildings.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#263

Post by so33 »

chc wrote: post #238
stale2002 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.... 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.

>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.

In the 1960s there was approximately half the population in the United States that exists now. The problem is that living close to work and extreme low density doesn't scale. For a majority of people to live close to work, something has to give, whether it be density or perhaps companies allowing telework.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#264

Post by trgn »

jimmaswell wrote: post #179
matwood wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cars are a better experience than transit/walking in every facet I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. There are plusses and minuses to both. IMO, the big plus with a car is freedom, but then there are many negatives like parking, traffic, and speed to destination. If I ever move again, it will be to a location where I do not have to own a car. I hate everything about driving, and realized it's a huge sourc…

Parking, traffic, and speed to destination depend on where you live and your specific situation, but for a lot of people, speed to destination is always faster in a car, including parking. My commute is only 5 minutes by car and it would take a lot longer on transit. Subjectively, I prefer being in my own space with personal temperature controls and music, and a bit of traffic would be worth it. Compared to transit,…

Driving isn't bad. Depending on the trip I prefer a car trip with traffic jams over a transit trip without. I really do love driving and cars, but just the stuff they show you in the commercials. The long cross-state family trip, the leisurely drive in the country, hauling a dishwasher, ...

But car culture in the aggregate has absolutely killed american cities. My city tore down its downtown to accommodate highways and parking lots. It's ghastly. Nobody wants to live in a place like that, nobody wants to visit a place like that. Traffic should be calmed in the city, so it's slow, predictable, quiet and safe. We'd get our towns back. Instead of building cities so they're convenient for cars, we should build them so they're convenient for pedestrians.

We can still use the car for all the other fun stuff.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#265

Post by jimmaswell »

bluGill wrote: post #261
jimmaswell wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>time spent finding a parking spot Not a lot of time at all in my experience, certainly less than waiting for public transit or an uber to arrive. >opportunity cost To me it's worth it. >exercise You walk inside the mall. And what about people with certain disabilities? Do they get left out of this walking-only city? >pollution Emissions are improving all the time, and electric cars are on the rise. >depreciating ass…

You are comparing the wrong thing. When you are in a walkable area most of the things you want to get to are closer than the distance that you walk form your car to the store in the mall. When there are 2 good restaurants on your block, and a small grocery store: you don't need to go to the mall anymore.

It was like that at college, on-campus eating places within a 5 minute walk of my dorm. Having experienced both, I prefer driving for 5 minutes to walking for 3.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#266

Post by IWeldMelons »

jnordwick wrote: post #2

> Streetscape enhancements add value to an area and are associated with higher rents and the attraction of new businesses. In addition there is good evidence to show that improving walking and cycling environments raises private property values by significant amounts. Nobody doubts this. Actually everybody sees this as the problem. I love NYC, but i also hate it. There is a price for density: crime, trash, prices, ov…

NYC is a low crime city.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#267

Post by imgabe »

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…

> Chicago has also come around to the notion that streets aren't "for cars."

I wish drivers in my city would realize this. Some of them act like anything other than a car in the street is a personal insult.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#268

Post by baby »

com2kid wrote: post #198
baby wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only city I've been in the US that made me think "wow, that's kind of walkable" was Boston. Are there any other dense cities I should visit?

Lots of DT areas of cities are walkable, but Boston is kind of unique in that it has miles and miles of walkable streets. Its urban core is just really big. Portions of Seattle are very walkable (From the International District going north, quite a few miles), and individual parts of Chicago are walkable. Heck there are 2 or 3 mile stretches of San Diego are walkable (there might be more than that, I only spent a wee…

I wouldn't call Chicago and San Diego walkable (I'm talking about like european cities walkable)

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#269

Post by baby »

reaperducer wrote: post #230
baby wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is something that certain cities have understood for many years. Chicago There is a big contradiction here, I haven't really seen walkable streets in Chicago (lived there for a year and a half). When I think of an American city with walkable streets I think of Boston for example.

Unless you lived in some far-out neighborhood and never went downtown, I really have a hard time believing you. I lived there ten years, after growing up in New York, and it was very walkable. I ended up getting rid of both of my family's cars because we could walk or CTA everywhere.

I'd say the loop is kind-of-walkable. But you always end up having to cross large streets made for cars and at night it's empty.

Compare that to a city like London or Paris.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#270

Post by intrasight »

>Walkable Streets are More Economically Productive

"Walkable Streets" really mean main streets.

Main streets are economically productive if they have a critical mass of interesting stores.

> More economically productive

More than what? Other main streets? This is circular reasoning.

Post reply on HN