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

301–310 of 429 posts

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#301

Post by goda90 »

Johnny555 wrote: post #247
goda90 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the streets are only used by self driving cars, then traffic will flow much more smoothly. No accidents, no police stops, one speed, smooth computer merging. Less hard acceleration and braking, less idling, less time spent in a running vehicle by each user.

You have a lot more faith in technology than I do -- there will still be accidents, as good as self-driving cars are, they are still subject to the laws of physics and sometimes cars will run into each other or other objects or people. We already have effectively self-driving cars with Uber and other car-sharing services, and all you need to do is go to SFO's departure level during peak travel times to see the traffi…

The key really is self driving only. No human drivers. Communication between cars and road systems. At that point, collision avoidance becomes only about pedestrians, animals, and other random objects that enter the street unexpectedly. The self driving car will be able to see, predict, and respond to that, and communicate the need to stop to the cars behind far faster than a human driver.

With inter-car communication, there won't be any confusion about where each car intends to go. No long waits for an opening.

Car design will push towards passenger comfort, and no longer towards "power" and "handling". This could mean smaller cars overall. 1-2 passenger vehicles could be common.

Yeah, it's definitely far down the road, and there will be a lot of forces that'll make it difficult to reach, but I think self driving cars are a chance to make things better.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#302

Post by sotojuan »

rayiner wrote: post #165
d--b wrote: post #126

It's always a tradeoff... - super dense cities like Tokyo or New York can feel suffocating. A lot of people can't bear it. The lack of green space, and the overcrowding of people and cars increases the stress levels by a lot. Yet, being able to walk around the city is excellent for exercising and mindfulness, it's easier to meet with people, etc. - super sparse cities (like LA or Brasilia) on the other end tend to is…

> super dense cities like Tokyo or New York can feel suffocating. A lot of people can't bear it. The lack of green space, and the overcrowding of people and cars increases the stress levels by a lot. I strongly suspect when people say that, they're thinking of the day time population of the tourist/business districts in those cities. The daytime population of Manhattan is nearly 4 million people, mostly concentrated…

Agreed. I would feel suffocated if I lived in Midtown Manhattan.

In my Brooklyn neighborhood the density feels fairly low (10-15 visible in the street). Green space isn't great for most but I happen to live two blocks from a park.

Many places in Manhattan also feel like this if they aren't business or nightlife heavy.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#303

Post by andys627 »

d--b wrote: post #126

It's always a tradeoff... - super dense cities like Tokyo or New York can feel suffocating. A lot of people can't bear it. The lack of green space, and the overcrowding of people and cars increases the stress levels by a lot. Yet, being able to walk around the city is excellent for exercising and mindfulness, it's easier to meet with people, etc. - super sparse cities (like LA or Brasilia) on the other end tend to is…

It's more what the gov't is subsidizing than what people enjoy. EG in the US it's easy to get a loan for a new single family detached house, gas taxes are low, lots of "general fund" money goes towards building highways, ample free/underpriced parking in every downtown. Contrast to Denmark where there is 100% taxes on cars, little parking, big investments in biking and transit.

Autonomous cars are going to give the suburbs a new lease on life. They will make it easier than ever to live in far flung places because you'll be able to work from the car on the way to work. Autonomous cars will require less parking downtown, but I imagine they'll convert the parking to driving lanes for the widely anticipated massive increase in vehicle miles travelled.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#304

Post by jimmaswell »

jessaustin wrote: post #286
jimmaswell wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Galleria at Crystal Run in Middletown, NY, the Poughkeepsie Gallerie in Poughkeepsie, NY, the Newburgh Mall in Newburgh, NY, and the Palisades Mall in West Nyack, NY are all some that I've been to either within the past months or few years and they were all doing fine.

It's been some time since I was in that general area, but my impression is that many people in those suburbs commute via train for their employment. Surely those malls, if they are indeed thriving, owe some of their success to the rest of the NYC metro area, which is noted for being the most transit-oriented location in USA? Malls in the transit-free hinterlands you seemed to prefer, are not thriving.

>Surely those malls, if they are indeed thriving, owe some of their success to the rest of the NYC metro area

I suppose, but I'm not sure this proves your point. If anything, it shows that these commuters are choosing to go to the mall up there instead of window shopping in the city. I never said I prefer "transit-free hinterlands"? That general area is actually the specific example I had in mind all along.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#305

Post by sotojuan »

d--b wrote: post #126

It's always a tradeoff... - super dense cities like Tokyo or New York can feel suffocating. A lot of people can't bear it. The lack of green space, and the overcrowding of people and cars increases the stress levels by a lot. Yet, being able to walk around the city is excellent for exercising and mindfulness, it's easier to meet with people, etc. - super sparse cities (like LA or Brasilia) on the other end tend to is…

Ironically, the suburb/city of LA my parents live in (Glendale) felt extremely walkable and not suffocating.

My parents live in a residential area that looks like your average American suburb - no stores, just houses and cars. But if you walk west of their house for 10 mins, you go to a large boulevard full of restaurants, shops, and people hanging out. It felt like a nice balance, but I doubt there are many jobs in there for the residents, so most do make the highway trip to LA proper.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#306

Post by jimmywanger »

emodendroket wrote: post #272
jimmywanger wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Many countries combine authoritarianism with high rates of violent crime and poverty.

Well, in your original point you said "all I have to do is sign up for totalitarian rule?" mockingly, equating the two.

They're not the same, but many people would choose totalitarian prosperity over democratic poverty.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#307

Post by emodendroket »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #82
matt4077 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> crime, trash, prices, overcrowding, urban decay, poverty and homelessness, etc. I fail to see how that description actually fits today's New York, or most other large US cities. It may have been true in the 80s. But just the change over time proves that these aren't necessary consequences of high density. You may also wish to take a walk around Paris, Venice, or Barcelona to see how attractive urban environments ca…

> But those currently living in Suburbia, USA have probably chosen the worst of all worlds. Not even close. There are parts of the inner city that make the suburbs look like heaven. There are rural areas where the lack of opportunity makes the suburbs look like the promised land. Urban environments can be fine. But they can also be (at least in places) horrible. And even when their fine, they're not for everybody. So…

And in fact it does offer "the best of both worlds" in a sense: you can work in a dense city with plenty of jobs without having to live there. That's the reason suburbs began to exist essentially as soon as trains made them possible.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#308

Post by maksimum »

ef4 wrote: post #200
d--b wrote: post #126

It's always a tradeoff... - super dense cities like Tokyo or New York can feel suffocating. A lot of people can't bear it. The lack of green space, and the overcrowding of people and cars increases the stress levels by a lot. Yet, being able to walk around the city is excellent for exercising and mindfulness, it's easier to meet with people, etc. - super sparse cities (like LA or Brasilia) on the other end tend to is…

People always focus on these extreme endpoints, but to get a vibrant walkable neighborhood you don't need anything remotely close to New York or Tokyo densities. My street in Somerville, MA has a WalkScore (91) that's higher than the average score for New York city (89), yet every building in my neighborhood is detached and three stories tall. I have a back yard with grass. Not a big one, but it feels nothing like lo…

Is it really fair to compare Somerville to NYC? For example since you post on Ynews and live in Somerville, there's a high chance you work at MIT or one of the offices at Kendall. It's almost like someone who lives on 70th street in NYC, and works on 55th saying "NYC is perfectly walkable, most weeks I can get everywhere I need to by just walking." I.e. I don't really know whether it's worth talking about small towns or neighborhoods in the context of this thread.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#309

Post by rhapsodic »

IWeldMelons wrote: post #255
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…

The best urban environments I've lived in so far are the ones in the ex-USSR. They had moderate amount of street retail, not too much, but were very walkable. Today, in the area around me they began retrofitting the lowest levels of the condo buildings with cafeterias and such and it is becoming too busy, too messy and uncomfortable the people who lives in these buildings. Generally, what you need is not a retail in…

>TL,DR: If you want to get a nice, family friendly, comfortable urban environments -check the former USSR and the other Eastern Block countries.

I was in St. Petersburg, Russia a decade ago, and the parts of the city I saw that were built in the Soviet era looked anything but friendly and comfortable.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#310

Post by zpallin »

bluGill wrote: post #208
zpallin wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even better, look at Hong Kong. Almost every single high rise has a mall at the bottom with a dim sum restaurant.

Note that you said high rise. A 2 story building with half dedicated to retail has too much retail in general (in some specific situations it might make sense, but if every building did that there simply isn't enough need for retail space). However a 100 story building with only one floor retail needs more retail space to satisfy the residents' needs.

Agreed, which is why cities should ensure a certain level of population density around retail.
Post reply on HN