Live data from Hacker News

Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

bloomberg.com

271–280 of 308 posts

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

#271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well said. Another angle is the race angle. Most people advocating for lesser cars are young, healthy, rich and white. Healthy enough to not use cars and rich enough to live near work. https://theconversation.com/the-unbearable-whiteness-of-cycl... The group that talks about systemic racism is perpetuating it.

You do know that poor countries overwhelmingly don't use cars, right?

The standard social hierarchy is: walk everywhere -> bike everywhere -> go by motorbike everywhere -> drive a car everywhere.

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

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often see urbanists and young people fantasize about life in car free mega cities. Having lived that life for years I can’t imagine why. A lot of cities that are beautiful and attractive also have room for cars. I would even argue it is a big part of what makes those cities attractive. There’s no substitute for the point to point on demand fast transportation that cars offer. In cities that aren’t overbuilt, it mak…

Even famously “mass transit unfriendly” cities can be fit for a car-free lifestyle if you work at it. But I suspect a huge part of it is visiting Europe or Asia as a tourist and enjoying being without a car. But they didn’t actually live there.

> But I suspect a huge part of it is visiting Europe or Asia as a tourist and enjoying being without a car.

I live in Dublin. I'd rank it as pretty middling in transport by European standards. We have a decent bus network, commuter rail to the suburbs, trams that are frequent but overcrowded at rush hour, and intercity trains to the other cities in the country.

I've been here nearly a decade and have no great rush to buy a car. And there's still obvious improvement to be made. The red line needs a relief line unless work from home makes the expanse of new offices at the end of the line mostly empty, cycling lane coverage is spotty and often conflicting with buses or parking, and bike parking is lacking.

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

#273
post #184

I live in a wonderful neighbourhood that was developed in the early 1900s in an old factory converted to lofts. The workers lived around the area, the GM home was across the street. Similar factories, all lofts now, randomly dot the neighbourhood. Our "main" street is half a kilometre away and has shopping, bookstores, restaurants. All small businesses. Several transit routes run by the edges of the neighbourhood. Ev…

Wow sounds nice. Where is this?

Toronto, we have multiple neighbourhoods like this.

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

#275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it will never work because crime on American public transport is rampant. Are you sure? I’ve never had that impression across years of transit, bus and rail, in Pittsburgh and Boston. I think the biggest barrier is a chicken and egg problem: it’s hard to motivate transit expansion without dense housing and it’s hard to motivate denser housing except along existing transit corridors

Lol the amount of times I've seen a tweaker snoozing on my septa ride to work or some idiot going "hey I'm sorry to bother you folks but [insert fake sob story]". No thanks. Plus have you noticed there's a pandemic? The last thing I need is to be in a tube with strangers. Do you realize how miserable subway stations in east coast cities can get when the AC is broken? If they even have AC? The whole system would need…

> Most riders before covid were office commuters

Admittedly, I'm one of those office workers, so I haven't used transit much since the pandemic began, but I'll be back to using it daily early next year or so (subject to change, as always...)

It's always going to depend on your line and your time of day for how pleasant transit is, but as a general rule the more families use a transit line, the nicer it is. When I lived in Brookline, MA and took the Green Line trolley, it was extremely pleasant, even during non-work hours (when you would see parents with small children and such on your ride). However, the line goes through an upper middle class semi-dense[0] suburban neighborhood, so of course it was nice.

The same logic applies to Tokyo. The entire city is dense and almost every person takes transit sometimes. Even if there are unpleasant people (I'm sure there are), the overwhelming number of ordinary families, office workers, and so on, taking transit makes the less savory riders nearly invisible, at least to tourists.

This is why I say it's a chicken and egg problem: you won't ever have nice transit unless you have a system where middle class people want to ride transit, and you won't have that system unless it's more convenient than driving the car, and you won't have THAT system unless housing is dense.

> I do not want denser housing.

That's perfectly fair, and I agree that many people feel this way. Personally, I want to live in a city and I like having a lot of neighbors. When I walked through Japanese suburbs (where houses fill up an entire tiny lot with almost no space between them), it felt very at-home to me. But that's personal preference.

> Do you realize how miserable subway stations in east coast cities can get when the AC is broken? If they even have AC?

Yes of course, one of the advantages of taking a car is that you have your own personal climate controlled box with your music and nobody else's noises or smells. I don't dispute this, but that's not really a USA-centric problem (aside from the occasional broken AC in summer or broken heating in winter). Having your own personal climate box will always be more pleasant.

[0] My definition: semi-dense because it felt urban near the main street/transit but in a few pockets of Brookline, you could be a 10 minute walk from transit but surrounded by expensive single family homes on large lots.

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

#276
post #16

Architectural beauty is heavily dependent on context. Ornate gothic architecture, for example, peaked in popularity in the USA around 1870 and fell out of style in the early 1900s. Interest in it was revived in the late 20th century, so the same neighborhoods that would have been considered ugly and outdated 60 years ago are now "beautiful" again. A lot of it is also about uniqueness. The author is rightly awed by pr…

Your transient point is very appealing to me. The line of thinking that people move more-> lower incentive to build custom-> cheaper finishes/less creativity feels logical and can be tidily appended to the Enrico Moretti argument that economic opportunity has concentrated in the cities-> more people detach from their hometowns to chase opportunity.

There are two pieces of information that I struggle to integrate into this model and would be interested in how others reconcile:

1) US census data suggests (surprisingly!) that the % of residents moving each year has declined significantly since 1990, and before that was about the same back to the first data collected in the mid 40s (though with some collection gaps) [1]

2) Anecdata: most of the new builds I see around me (Boston MSA) are luxury apartment buildings or way out in the suburbs. The former aren't quaint, but are decidedly custom architecture. The latter, I stereotype as "folks settling down in the suburbs". Maybe McMansions, but I wouldn't expect transient. This one might just be a sampling error on my part.

[1]https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-189...

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

#277
post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The London orbital motorway the M25, definately not central London, with its majestic 12 lane sections boasts an average speed of 25mph.

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

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The city around him is only built for driving, doubly so his completely car-dependent neighbourhood. He'll be doing this until he either cannot possibly pull it off, or gets in a serious accident. This is a fact of life for millions of seniors in North America, and saying "oh no they shouldn't" won't change squat.

That's your job to take the keys away and get rid of the car. It's a sad situation but hardly unique

No it's not "my job". It'll be his kids' job when he's fully senile, but until then he's an adult human being with rights, and he wants to be independent and "age in place". At some point he'll cross the threshold into having his decision-making powers taken away. Let's hope no one gets hurt in the meantime.

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

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not confused lol. In America homes are just bigger now than they used to be. You can still go small though. No one said you had to take on a huge mortgage. That's why discretionary is a bad metric to use.
Post reply on HN