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

311–320 of 429 posts

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#311

Post by thriftwy »

IWeldMelons wrote: post #300
thriftwy wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should just confine yourself to whatever built before 70-s. After that you have huge cities' outskirts packed with 9 to 17 storey apartment buildings with some greens between them, but no other amenities. Everything is far apart and (these days) packed with cars. There's public transport but roads are wide and far between, so going to bus stop is painful. A lot of cold winds too. More central districts with ~5 st…

Not sure about the outskirts, but the urban cores are definitely not desolate and with no amenities. But I agree, ex-USSR urban planning is getting worse. Still not bad, compared to NYC.

Most of apartments that late USSR built would rank as "projects" in the USA. Yes there's less crime because their mixed occupants usually have work and life, but they're far from comfortable.

Most of NYC's homes are suburbia or town houses I guess (over tunnel and bridge) which for all of their shortcomings provide much better quality of life.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#312

Post by emodendroket »

jimmywanger wrote: post #306
emodendroket wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because the post I'm replying to made the same equation, referring to "strict control" and naming places under such rule. In a discussion about what to do about US suburbs I don't think El Salvador, a poor country whose civil war ended in 1992, is even the least bit relevant.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#313

Post by stale2002 »

jimmaswell wrote: post #160
stale2002 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If quality of life is so bad, then why are prices high? If it sucks to live somewhere, you would expect it to be CHEAPER than living in the surrounding area. But thats not what we see. What we see is that prices in urban areas are pretty much universally higher than living in the surrounding, less dense area? Do you know what that means? That means that the market has spoken, and it proves that people want to live in…

You're oversimplifying the economics, elevating one aspect of it above all other considerations. Cost of living doesn't prove that people "want" to live in these areas. What about taxes? Different strictness of regulations? Parking fees? Some may want to, but how many are a captive audience due to their field of work? How many simply have family ties? How many can't afford to take the steps to move out because they'r…

I am sure that is true for some people, but is it true for MOST people?

If anything, the examples you give mean that it is even more important to increase density.

This is because, for all of those reasons you mentioned, there are people who need to live in certain areas, but they can't, because they are priced out of the area!

The suburbs take up the majority of the world. If people want to live in low density areas, they can't live literally anywhere.

The problem is that the demand for high density is unfulfilled. Cities take a very small amount of space, when compared to the rest of the living space.

Thusly, there is nothing to lose. Don't want to live in a city? Then don't! You have 99% of the rest of the land to choose from.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#314

Post by IWeldMelons »

rhapsodic wrote: post #309
IWeldMelons wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They might have looked dull, but not duller than any American city, esp. built in 20th century. Besides, the whole point is not the looks, but the layouts are nice. Still, currently living in a large Soviet city, and to me it is much nicer than Philly or NYC.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#315

Post by nostrademons »

nkoren wrote: post #289
closeparen wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure progressives are strongly aligned on opposition to any housing construction unless it’s specifically set aside for low-income residents, and are okay with low density zoning as an anti-gentrification measure. YIMBYism is more center-left than progressive.

Are you from San Francisco? I've noticed that "Progressive" has taken on an extremely weird meaning there, which is contrary or at least orthogonal to how it's used everywhere else in the world. Nowhere else that I know of is opposition to urban infill development billed as "progressive".

It's non-uniform there, which is a little weird because "progressives" in the Bay Area are arguing strongly for more infill development while other "progressives" are arguing strongly against new development.

I think it's because San Francisco was "progressive" back in the 60s, which means that there's been time for the past couple generations of progressives to become entrenched NIMBY's with a vested interest in the status quo while still maintaining their "progressive" identity. It's a very weird yet oddly lovable city.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#316

Post by lakechfoma »

bhewes wrote: post #183
lakechfoma wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was there recently, I don't think it hits the mark. Way too corporate, too expensive, something about it is fake or trying too hard or something. It's also just a few islands of walkable spots interspersed with 4 lane divided roads. I felt like it was Exxon trying to impress business travelers, not something we can really replicate everywhere.

I agree. Exxon came late to the game think more Chevron and Anadarko. And the city is straight out of the 1970's Texas developer thought process. And yeah it is a new money striver town. I know one person who built a 14k sqft house only to build later the largest house in the Woodlands at something like 30k sqft. Then the weird lake front new urbanism project. Where you can live in a high rise.

Yeah I was running down that walk during construction, very odd area but I guess cool if you work at one of those corpos, dig whole foods, and don't mind a lack of local character. That walk would be beautiful to run on if it weren't Houston, I am not used to that humidity!

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#317

Post by megy »

baby wrote: post #269
reaperducer wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you lived in some far-out neighborhood and never went downtown, I really have a hard time believing you. I lived there ten years, after growing up in New York, and it was very walkable. I ended up getting rid of both of my family's cars because we could walk or CTA everywhere.

I'd say the loop is kind-of-walkable. But you always end up having to cross large streets made for cars and at night it's empty. Compare that to a city like London or Paris.

London and Paris also have large streets made for cars, and also has lots of streets that are empty at night. Even the Champs Elysées and Oxford St will be empty at certain times during the week.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#318

Post by crispyambulance »

jimmaswell wrote: post #192
crispyambulance wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't sound like something I'd care much about. That's OK. It's a free country you can live where and how you want. But recognize that many, especially increasing numbers of millennials, feel differently and this is now reshaping the demographics of cities.

I want to know what it's supposed to amount to. Talking to people randomly on the street or on the bus?

I think it would be hard for us to understand each other, but I can respect that you very feel differently about cities.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#319

Post by timerol »

maksimum wrote: post #308
ef4 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In terms of density, yeah, I think they are comparable. At least, as much as any other place in the US is comparable to NYC. Somerville's astounding density is one of my favorite facts, since it seems so neighborhood-y to walk through. Somerville is the most dense area in the US outside of the metropolitan areas of NYC, LA, and Miami. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

The GP's point was that we should look at extremes between super dense cities and super sparse cities, and Somerville fits nicely there.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#320

Post by [deleted] »

Johnny555 wrote: post #229
baby wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only city I've been in the US that made me think "wow, that's kind of walkable" was Boston. Are there any other dense cities I should visit?

San Francisco is quite walkable -- when I lived there, within a 5 block radius (roughly a 10 minute walk) I had 2 grocery stores, at least a half dozen corner markets, miscellaneous shops (dry cleaner, shoe repair, a cigar store, produce market, etc), numerous bars and restaurants. The entire city is only 7 miles wide, so about half the city is within a 30 minute walking radius.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN