31–40 of 344 posts
Edit: It’d also be interesting to see the environmental impact of mega cities. And what about cities like Portland where they have put in a lot effort to plan around growth? Is it working?
> they’d no longer segregate rich from poor Should people who want to spend more on housing be automatically labeled “rich”?
Should people who can't afford housing be automatically labelled "poor"? It's certainly one indicator. Not segrating people improves the world. Segragating them introduces division, self-evidentially. Something to be avoided, then, and worked against. Planners will try to mix properties in a new development, if the local politics is to provide for everyone fairly.
What planners need to do it make sure that when the rich vacate the neighborhood they left behind is good. Part of that is making sure that some of the rich decide to rebuild their current house instead of leaving thus mixing the neighborhood a bit.
Cities are a long games. The "ideal" state you plan today to build tomorrow is not the end state. That means your plans need to account for change. New development will be old in 20 years, what then?
Improving life in cities is a matter of fixing existing problems, like poor public transport and pollution from combustion engines and heating. Building a "feel good" fantasy around the hatred of cars isn't going to improve anything, it'll just replace the current best choice for individual transport with something inferior, as well as destroy the economy (which depends on roads for logistics and public services).
Improving life in cities is a matter of fixing existing problems, like poor public transport and pollution from combustion engines and heating. Building a "feel good" fantasy around the hatred of cars isn't going to improve anything, it'll just replace the current best choice for individual transport with something inferior, as well as destroy the economy (which depends on roads for logistics and public services).
The alternative is the status quo of the past half century where we pay lip service to city livability then expand our automobile-dependent suburban sprawl outward while adding one bus line that runs once an hour until it's cut for low ridership
Defeating the status quo always takes a motivated group, and hatred of cars is a good motivator as any. Cars shouldn't be outright banned, but they should be the most expensive and inconvenient option for commuters (which implies building transit infrastructure)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the US went to the other extreme and is only slowly turning around. US car manufacturers are doubling down on large trucks and SUVs and the current administration continues to thwart progress on tackling climate change and other societal concerns. I would say the US, at least on a macro level, is still on the "other extreme" path.
> US car manufacturers are doubling down on large trucks and SUVs Manufacturers are building lots of SUVs because this is what people in the US prefer to buy. If manufacturers build tons of subcompacts instead they would have to drop prices and probably sell those subcompacts at a loss. If you wanted to sell more small cars instead you should convince consumers to buy them (e.g., via end user incentives), which would…
Improving life in cities is a matter of fixing existing problems, like poor public transport and pollution from combustion engines and heating. Building a "feel good" fantasy around the hatred of cars isn't going to improve anything, it'll just replace the current best choice for individual transport with something inferior, as well as destroy the economy (which depends on roads for logistics and public services).
I don't think its a hatred of cars. Its just cars are so entrenched in western cultures that its easy to overlook all the problems. All those things you cited are all exacerbated by the car. Electric cars will solve the pollution issue, but they are still cars, with all the issues they bring.
They are entrenched for a reason: because they are extremely useful. Without cars and the individual transport methods they superseded, many of our cities wouldn't even exist.
What this and many other articles do, is to decide first what the problem should be and then build a case around it to show it in a bad light. That's not how you improve life in cities, it's just how you get rid of cars and with them all the benefits you've overlooked. Proof: you can get all the benefits of cars without the drawbacks by putting all the infrastructure for cars underground and using EV. None of these "visionaries" consider that, because they hate cars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't believe there is a nefarious scheme in play. I don't either but I do see it a sad lack of imagination and resignation to out-of-date mythologies about individualism. There's no defensible reason why work-home-school-retail structures rural places can't nucleate closer together into walkable "main street" towns. Much of the design of fly-over states is dictated by developers. It starts when a farmer who want…
It is about trade offs though. I moved from a 10 acre lot to a small city recently. I love that my son and I went for an hour walk to a park (we passed a different park on the way because we played in that one yesterday) and back. I love that my work is only a few minutes drive away (now that the weather is warmer I need to get my bike working). I miss other things about my rural lot though. There is no space to driv…
I am glad to see a comment like this on HN, despite the impression that everyone here is an SV-focused tech bro. Sometimes it feels good to read about somebody's tractors whilst I gaze out at the soybean field in my backyard. :)
Improving life in cities is a matter of fixing existing problems, like poor public transport and pollution from combustion engines and heating. Building a "feel good" fantasy around the hatred of cars isn't going to improve anything, it'll just replace the current best choice for individual transport with something inferior, as well as destroy the economy (which depends on roads for logistics and public services).
> Building a "feel good" fantasy around the hatred of cars isn't going to improve anything The alternative is the status quo of the past half century where we pay lip service to city livability then expand our automobile-dependent suburban sprawl outward while adding one bus line that runs once an hour until it's cut for low ridership Defeating the status quo always takes a motivated group, and hatred of cars is a go…
There are many alternatives. You can even go live in car-free areas right now and have been able to do so for decades, e.g. the island Hydra in Greece.
> Defeating the status quo always takes a motivated group, and hatred of cars is a good motivator as any.
I happen to like the status quo and don't want a loud minority to "defeat" it based on their hatred.
when every new building requires effectively bring special interest groups, politicians, regulatory boards, and unions, their due is it a surprise cities are not getting better.
they are serving a politically connected elite, not the people who live there or want to live there.