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

271–280 of 429 posts

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#271

Post by baby »

samsolomon wrote: post #176
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.

I'd be curious to hear why you say that. What makes Boston more walkable than Chicago? I lived there for about six months, that was the first time I realized it was possible—even preferable—to live in a city without a car.

I'm mostly comparing to european cities. Chicago is definitely more walkable than a lot of cities, but it's nothing like european cities where you can walk around for hours and still be amazed at how much life there is around you.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#272

Post by emodendroket »

jimmywanger wrote: post #220
emodendroket wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As if those were the only choices. I'd rather stay where I am than live in either place.

Well where you are is presumably better than El Salvador when it come to terms of crime and wealth, and better than Singapore in terms of freedom. If you were currently living in El Salvador with a family, would you move to Singapore for freedom? Conversely, if you were currently living in Singapore with a family, would you move to Singapore for safety and money?

The two places are so different I don't know what the point of the comparison is. It's not like you turn up the authoritarianism meter and it becomes a safe place to live. Many countries combine authoritarianism with high rates of violent crime and poverty.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#273

Post by technofiend »

imgabe wrote: post #267
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.

Houston is unfortunately the same. I've been run off the road, honked at and chased while riding my bike on the city streets. We have police on cycles (and horses for that matter) but not enough so Houston has sort of punted and created dedicated bike lanes. It's a start.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#274

Post by rayiner »

pcwalton wrote: post #212
rayiner wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economics is to urban planning like structural mechanics is to architecture. It's a way of describing a justification ("we need a beam to hold up the floor, and the math shows why") not a justification in and of itself. It's also a way of bridging differences in subjective preferences "whether we have a post or a cantilever, we need to hold up this awning, and the math shows why"). Most Americans don't live in cities…

> To a degree that stands in stark contrast to Europe. Over 60% of the population of Germany's capital lives in the city proper. Just 11% of the population of America's capital lives in the city proper. Eh, D.C. is an outlier due to its special legal/territorial status. And the numbers are uneven in Europe as well. In Los Angeles, 3,976,322/13,131,431 (30.3%) of the population of the metro area lives in L.A. proper.…

Out of the 10 largest U.S. cities, only San Antonio has a majority of the population of its metro area. Most aren't even close, at 20-30%. Out of the 10 largest EU cities, only three have less than half the population in the core city: Madrid, Paris, and Hamburg. And Madrid is close to the line--48%.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#275

Post by emodendroket »

roymckenzie wrote: post #235
emodendroket wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people enjoy their quiet suburban neighborhoods and don't have any particular desire to live in a dense city so to convince them these guys need to start talking about dire economic consequences.

Lol

Thanks for your insight.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#276

Post by wonder_er »

chc wrote: post #252
wonder_er wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a group of people that believe that most current "dense cities" in the united states are very poorly designed.

So, when you say "dense cities already exist", that group hears "your concerns are invalid/useless".

Conversely, "making cities harder to get around when not on foot" also means "making cities easier to get around if you don't own a car".

Individuals who live in cities and don't have a car are comfortable with this. Or, they live in cities and a car is not their dominant method of travel.

This whole issue is extremely complex, and not amenable to a simple solution, like "making cities easier to get around on foot" or "make it easier to drive around a city".

Jane Jacobs's "Death And Life of Great American Cities" is a fantastic (and beautifully written) exposé of the topic. Believe it or not, I finished the book this morning.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#277

Post by bluGill »

chc wrote: post #252
wonder_er wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, what we are advocating is that we make more areas where people can get around their own neighborhood on foot. That it makes the neighborhood harder for outsiders to get around is a side effect. However the neighborhood doesn't need outsiders in this model.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#278

Post by lazerpants »

jermaustin1 wrote: post #214
lazerpants wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, NYC has a glut of unused ground floor retail space and a housing shortage, simultaneously.

It's so bad most commercial listings usually have something along the lines of "Not suitable as living space" in them. That's because you can rent a small ground floor office in some of the further north neighborhoods of Manhattan for almost half the price of the same square foot apartment, with similar amenities. The kitchen will be tiny (so is the one in your apartment), the bathroom will be tiny (so is the one in…

Indeed. My wife and I explored opening an "art gallery" in Mott Haven/South Bronx in a cool old warehouse that cost less than our small apartment. It didn't work out for a number of reasons but the size of the space was a tremendous value.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#279

Post by CydeWeys »

intrasight wrote: post #270

>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.

What is a "main street" in the context of Manhattan? That phrase only has meaning out in the suburbs. "Walkable street" does not mean the same thing as "main street". Every street here is walkable.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#280

Post by [deleted] »

reaperducer wrote: post #224
rm999 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A lot has changed. In the last five years dozens of new skyscrapers have been built in the CBD (The Loop, River North, Near North, West Loop, etc...). Scrolling through Chicago Architecture web site [0] will give you an idea of the level of rapid development. [0] http://chicagoarchitecture.org

[deleted]
Post reply on HN