Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 308 posts

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

#261

Post by supermatt »

0x0nyandesu wrote: post #247
supermatt wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep saying disposable income (money after taxes) when you mean discretionary income (money after necessary expenses such as rent, bills, transportation and food).

Laymen versus technical. If I'm talking to a random person on the street I'm gonna say disposable. But yes I mean discretionary. My discretionary income is still huge. Well over 50% of my paycheck. It's also not even fair to say though because it's still my choice to have upgraded my living situation. Sure I'm locked in now but I could sell my house and downgrade at any time and my discretionary will go up.

Unfortunately, your confusion is endemic of the problem with government statistics using disposable income as an indicator of prosperity, and is even being quoted by others in this thread. Indeed, you likely googled "historical disposable income" to back up your statement - which is exactly the problem with using the incorrect term.

I wont make the comparison to 100 years ago (as you did) because that was a period of time including 2 world wars and the great depression., But adjusted for inflation, people generally have LESS discretionary income now than they did in the 60s. Again, this is hard to corroborate with official poverty statistics due to changes in the cost of living (and conversely, the provision of benefits such as food stamps), which are frequently petitioned to be amended.

Over 12% of americans have such low discretionary income they have to rely on food banks - a figure comparable to the 1970s.

10x more people in the UK are accessing emergency food from food banks than they did 10 years ago.

It is a terrible state of affairs, to be honest. Please dont use disposable income :)

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

#262

Post by inglor_cz »

nottorp wrote: post #260
inglor_cz wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should a neighbourhood consisting of single family homes not be walkable? This is such a neighbourhood from the early 1920s not too far from where I grew up. Take a stroll through it with Street View. It is perfectly walkable. https://goo.gl/maps/kKqhtNbKDy6oycSi9 The lots are smallish compared to the American standard, though. This is a crowded continent.

It's not a single use zone if stores are allowed in it. The OP means that you need a car to get anything you need because the nearest store is 2 hours of walking away.

Ah, this is something I did not know. A residential area that allows no stores is really a weird, weird concept.

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

#263

Post by sytelus »

tortarga wrote: post #63

As the article hinted at the simple answer is Car Dependency. Suburbs are regulated and built to accommodate cars now and not people. The topic is explored thouroughly on the 'Not Just Bikes' youtube channel. https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes which uses information from urban planning group 'Strong Towns' https://www.strongtowns.org/ .

I don’t think that’s what article says. Article just keeps blathering that new neighborhoods are not “beautiful” or “nice” without describing any objective measures for what author really meant.

I do understand however what it is trying to say. My opinion is that housing development is vastly commoditized and builders wants tried and trusted designs at lowest prices and fastest speed. There is not much room for creativity and experimentation. I went to see houses build by Toll Brothers which are premium expensive builders and even their designs were regular with few bells and whistles only to show off. Lower end market basically just follows the template. This is extremely disappointing because house construction is something that lasts for so long.

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

#264

Post by rsj_hn »

blitzar wrote: post #259
jppope wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "There’s no substitute for the point to point on demand fast transportation that cars offer." Very few American cities actually offers FAST point to point transit via automobiles. 50 years ago, it was probably realistic, but now automobile traffic in most American cities makes quick transportation anywhere unrealistic.

Average speed in central london is 7mph. To be fair, cars are on demand, unlike tube where waiting times can reach an outrageous 5 minutes.

But central London is a tiny portion of London, and the slow speeds are very common for busy downtown areas of large cities. Despite excellent public transportation, 54% of London households own at least one car - not too much different from the number for Newark, NJ (60%).

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-many-cars-a...

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

#265

Post by tomjen3 »

tortarga wrote: post #121
theamk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, the article specifically addresses your point: > consider college campuses and their central quads, which typically do not have automobiles even today. The ones people admire are the older ones, not the newer campuses, which tend to be functional but aesthetically mediocre

These are most likely two separate problems. Car based urban planning which requires large wide roads, giant carparks and 'boxey houses' due to garages can overwhelm any other aesthetically pleasing design (notably green space). Admiring the old brick styles of the ivy leagues is simple confirmation bias due to their academic prestige. There are plenty of beautiful Modernist buildings, it comes down to if the college…

I would like to see some pictures of beautiful Modernist buildings.

I live in an apartment, but the house I grow up in had more lawn space than was used by the car.

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

#266

Post by vagrantJin »

xibalba wrote: post #129
tortarga wrote: post #63

As the article hinted at the simple answer is Car Dependency. Suburbs are regulated and built to accommodate cars now and not people. The topic is explored thouroughly on the 'Not Just Bikes' youtube channel. https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes which uses information from urban planning group 'Strong Towns' https://www.strongtowns.org/ .

There is not faster to way to discredit oneself than to offer a pat, single variable explanation. As others point out, Americans like and want to transport themselves by car. Let's accept this, work with it, and build around it instead of lusting after a minority defined Utopia.

> Americans like and want to transport themselves by car.

I think the minority are questioning the strangeness of this supposition. Least of all because the government has a hand in it.

Neighbourhoods are where people live, yet built for and around cars?

It may be single variable but I think a reasonable person might want to question that at least on some way.

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

#267

Post by rendall »

betaby wrote: post #124
rendall wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno. East Berlin is pretty soul-crushing, with its block upon block upon block of blocky blocks. Warehouses for humans.

Less soul-crushing than most of the Montreal for me, which looks mostly like that outside of the fancy neighborhoods https://goo.gl/maps/vH7SwbRXdZndQszt5

You're right. East Berlin is not so bad: https://goo.gl/maps/KtpqjfJW2eUUcbP8A

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

#268

Post by oblio »

brightlancer wrote: post #240
handrous wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 neig…

Because it's a tragedy of the commons.

You're all focusing on the low level details while you're destroying the urban fabric of your cities and towns and housing is becoming super expensive that you end up with those masses of homeless people you then try to avoid by tearing down bus stops (or not building them in the first place).

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

#269

Post by oblio »

mobilewatch7 wrote: post #256
r_klancer wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting to note that Hacker News really loves Strong Towns. I chatted with Chuck Marohn (founder and face of Strong Towns) once at an event a couple years ago, and they're quite aware that they get a lot of traffic from HN.

The strong town movement and its affiliated planning companies ruined my community. A lot of the mixed use re zoning is a pretext for opening up rural areas for heavy industry.

That's just ridiculous, though. Does anyone sane zone heavy industry together with residential?

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

#270

Post by oblio »

inglor_cz wrote: post #262
nottorp wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a single use zone if stores are allowed in it. The OP means that you need a car to get anything you need because the nearest store is 2 hours of walking away.

Ah, this is something I did not know. A residential area that allows no stores is really a weird, weird concept.

Small stores draw criminals, you see?
Post reply on HN