Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive • Hacker News Board

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#321

Post by IWeldMelons » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:14 PM UTC

thriftwy wrote: post #311

IWeldMelons wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

First of all, the projects often do not look bad, and if you fill them with more or less decent public are nice buildings. Now, speaking of "better quality of life" -- no they do not. I lived in condos in NYC (brooklyn), and they all universally were bad - built in 1920s, made literally from paper, stinky, could hear my neighbors, required constant maintenance, had no public areas to speak of. Soviet condo buildings may be dull on outside, but they require almost zero maintenance. My building is built in 1965 and it is still like new - no mold, no stink, no cracks. American plywood condos do not last even 25 years without starting looking rundown. Besides, I have nice playground nearby, beautiful greenery, a small park across the street.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#322

Post by tpm » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:14 PM UTC

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…

I'd rather say if you want that, visit new (post car-fetish era) developments in central and western Europe, like in many German towns. Essentially any German town I've been to is better than most of the Eastern Europe I know. While Eastern block estates were built mostly without cars in mind, they were also rushed, low quality buildings, without enough retail or comunal spaces, built in space won by razing old buildings or whole neighborhoods, without regard for the history. Especially in the 70's and later the quality of planning and execution went rapidly downhill, leading to problematic estates like Jizni Mesto or Petrzalka.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#323

Post by lazerpants » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:15 PM UTC

luckydata wrote: post #213

jimmaswell wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too much density decreases the quality of life. Overcrowdedness, very long waiting times at every establishment or government office, increased ease of pickpockets etc. to "disappear into the crowd", higher prices. You already see all this in many existing cities; you want that, but worse? I'll take malls connected by highways over that any day. Malls are nice and cars are a better experience than transit/walking in…

I don't know where you live, but you clearly never experienced a city the way it's being described by the others in this thread. I currently live in the US in a small town in the midwest after a long stint in California (socal first then bay area). Previously I lived for a few years in Madrid, an extremely dense city by western standards. I used to walk home from the office (roughly a mile and a half) when the weathe…

To play devil's advocate, I have a lot of your current problems and live in NYC in a pretty dense area.

Back when I lived in a far more suburban city I was able to play golf with friends, go hiking, and take road trips to see places and people. Restaurants were much more affordable and I rarely needed a reservation, stores weren't completely swarmed with people during the times I could visit them (which makes buying everything online easier). Everyone had a washer and dryer. People invited friends over for BBQs in their backyards. On weekends it was actually faster to go places than on weekdays, so I could visit people who lived in faraway parts of town and it was no big deal (in NYC I barely get to see my friends in Queens, it takes forever to get there). After dealing with so many people and broken down subways a lot of days I'm just tired and want to go home, so I end up just being home a lot.

Now, there are a lot of reasons I like living in NYC and choose to do so, but there are serious trade offs to living in a very dense environment and there are some awesome things about living in a low density environment.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#324

Post by crispyambulance » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:16 PM UTC

jimmaswell wrote: post #290

trgn wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much like a Normal Rockwell painting. A community near to you and all the advantages that come with it. - The ability to just stop by a neighbor for a drink or a chat - Somebody to give your house keys to while you're on vacation, without inconveniencing them since they live so close - Being able to call your doctor off hours in an emergency because you have a personal relation beyond your yearly visit - The g…

Most of that sounds like a normal small town, besides walking to school, which I don't think I'd ever let a kid of mine do in the city before maybe late high school. In most towns there are school buses that have routes in the morning to bring kids to school from their houses. It's not a choice between only driving and walking.

Well, there's "small towns" and there's "large cities" and there's "suburbs". All three are different and within each there's significant variation.

A small town or "streetcar suburb" in Jane Jacobs parlance functions very much like a city microcosm in terms of walkability, amenities and vibe. Most modern American suburbs are entirely different than small towns.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#325

Post by DrScump » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:17 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #232

jimmaswell wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too much density decreases the quality of life. Overcrowdedness, very long waiting times at every establishment or government office, increased ease of pickpockets etc. to "disappear into the crowd", higher prices. You already see all this in many existing cities; you want that, but worse? I'll take malls connected by highways over that any day. Malls are nice and cars are a better experience than transit/walking in…

Have you been to a mall recently? One that isn't dying? Where is it?

In a region with multiple malls within a 30-minute drive, the strong will survive (longer, at least) but the weak are dying. The most upscale in a region is probably doing fine.

Near SV, for example, Stanford Shopping Center and Santana Row are fine for now. In contrast, Westgate and Vallco are mere shadows of what they once were.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#326

Post by baby » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:18 PM UTC

megy wrote: post #317

baby wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> London and Paris also have large streets made for cars

wat

> also has lots of streets that are empty at night

of course, but the parts that are lively are huge, try walking in Soho.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#327

Post by rhapsodic » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:18 PM UTC

IWeldMelons wrote: post #314

rhapsodic wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>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.

The only comparable places I've seen in the US, in terms of sheer ugliness, are large high-rise government housing projects.

I will say this about St. Petersburg, in all sincerity: The woman (35 yrs and under) there seemed to be, on average, notably more attractive than in any other place I've been, before or since.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#328

Post by Smaug123 » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:18 PM UTC

jimmaswell wrote: post #265

bluGill wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are comparing the wrong thing. When you are in a walkable area most of the things you want to get to are closer than the distance that you walk form your car to the store in the mall. When there are 2 good restaurants on your block, and a small grocery store: you don't need to go to the mall anymore.

It was like that at college, on-campus eating places within a 5 minute walk of my dorm. Having experienced both, I prefer driving for 5 minutes to walking for 3.

This is your prerogative; but understand that very many people do not think like you.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#329

Post by jimmywanger » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:18 PM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #312

jimmywanger wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No, the post you responded to says that density without strict oversight leads to all the bad things you were talking about. I cannot think of a counterexample.

Density with strict oversight seems like it could lead to a flourishing society, which is what has happened in those other examples.

It's very easy to have density with strict oversight lead to bad results, but some form of strict oversight seems like a prerequisite to prosperous density. Anything else it seems like you're reading what you want to read out of the statement.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#330

Post by CydeWeys » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 10:18 PM UTC

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…

You're probably just thinking of Times Square. The vast majority of people that live even in Manhattan do not live in horribly suffocating/overcrowded neighborhoods. To give you one example, I live in Stuyvesant Town, which has a population density of 200k/mi^2 (which is greater than the overall population density of Manhattan at 170k/mi^2), and yet Stuyvesant Town feels positively residential. It's full of parks, playgrounds, trees, green spaces, walking paths, etc., and it certainly never feels overcrowded. If anything it feels like a respite from the parts of Manhattan that do get super-crowded, which are inevitably the commercial/tourististic hubs.

It takes population densities of greater than 1M/mi^2 to truly feel overcrowded, and even in NYC you only see such densities in localized incredibly high-traffic spots, like Times Square and Herald Square. The vast majority of Manhattan is never so crowded as to feel suffocating.