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

371–380 of 429 posts

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#371

Post by emodendroket »

jimmywanger wrote: post #368
emodendroket wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so I suppose the conclusion I would draw, if we accept all these premises, is that increased density is not worth the cost.

Well, increased density is off the table without massive forced birth control/a massive die off. The population of the world has massively spiked in the last fifty years, the trend is continuing especially in poor countries, and all these people have to go somewhere. A dense city is the only place for them to go and try to support themselves, since there isn't enough good land around for subsistence farming. Density…

This article entirely concerns the United States and changing policy to encourage more density in its cities, so I'm not seeing the relevance of third-world birth rates. Prosperity does tend to significantly reduce birth rates.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#372

Post by baby »

chc wrote: post #338
baby wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't call Chicago and San Diego walkable (I'm talking about like european cities walkable)

I don't know about European cities, but it's generally easier to walk around the San Diego Gaslamp Quarter than it is to drive.

I was there two weeks ago. It’s pretty much one street with a dozens of bars. Quite empty during the week.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#373

Post by kobrad »

MaysonL wrote: post #80

Jane Jacobs pointed this out in 1961: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_Am...

It's nice to see her mentioned here. If you've had any architectural education you got to read Jacobs. It's also amazing that we need to rediscover her 60 years later.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#374

Post by jdavis703 »

briandear wrote: post #358
stcredzero wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the cities citizens. Northern European cities such as Copenhagen are pretty quiet, despite their high density. A lot of the character of a city does come from how its citizens imagine it's supposed to be. In the nicer parts of Stuttgart in 2000: Never once even the smell of garbage.

Paris is a Northern European town I think and it’s a disaster in terms of noise. Those damned 2 cycle scooters for instance. And dog poop and trash and people pissing wherever they feel like. And it’s expensive. Paris is an overrated nightmare. And Copenhagen isn’t really that dense. It’s ranked 117th in the world — just under New Orleans and above Montreal: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density…

Paris feels much more like a western European city, and France is definitely not considered northern European, at least if northern European is a synonym for Scandanavian.

Also thanks for adding data to this discussion, I am surprised Copenhagen ranks so low. But the neighborhoods I'm familiar with (Nørrebro, Vesterbro and Frederiksberg) definitely feel more dense than your typical North American city. The majority of housing is mid-rise, with lots of street-level retail.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#375

Post by bobthepanda »

beat wrote: post #260
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.

It's more complicated than that. The recent Minneapolis mayoral race had housing policy as a major issue, and Minneapolis is nothing if not progressive. Affordability and gentrification are interrelated, but so is quality. I live in a relatively low-density neighborhood of mostly 80-110 year old houses. Lately, we're getting new development in the form of cheap older rentals being torn down, and large-for-the-lots (t…

So there are multiple policy options that you could do.

There's deregulation; deregulate anything that isn't explicitly for safety purposes. Schools and sewers and congestion and all of that should ideally be paid for with impact fees, not reflexively blocked out of hand. Every additional regulation is a cost on the developer passed down to the owner and the renter, and with enough small costs eventually you start pricing people out.

There's also more regulation; a lot of the current appreciation is because America places a lot of strange emphasis on housing as an investment product, rather than a commodity. It wasn't always this way; go back a few decades and property performs more like a bond than a stock, none of this speculation and house-flipping BS. And in most housing markets, housing works this way. Tax or restrict purchases of non-primary homes and such.

And then there's the final thing; lot size regulation. You can cap how big a lot can be for a project of a given size. You could build a very comfortable house at 1/10 an acre, or even 1/20th of an acre; it's hard to justify a single-family house much bigger than that. And in general, buildings should take up at most a quarter of a normal city block.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#376

Post by kiliantics »

stretchwithme wrote: post #194

I look forward to a time when vehicles and pedestrians aren't interacting at all. Vehicles should be below where people walk and ride bikes. Either roads are designed to be underground or we one layer up from existing roads. And that's were storefronts will be. Robotic construction is going to drive down construction costs dramatically, so I think it will be feasible. Vehicles will be totally electric a few decades f…

I remember parts of Hong Kong being designed like this when I visited 10 years ago. It felt a little awkward but I could see this working nicely. Ideally we'd just remove the need for cars altogether though. Maybe freight could come in underground.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#377

Post by kiliantics »

paganel wrote: post #364
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…

> The best urban environments I've lived in so far are the ones in the ex-USSR You might want to read more about Microdistricts ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microdistrict ), if you haven't already, as a resident of one of those former communist Eastern-European cities I can attest to their usefulness. For example, until a couple of years ago I used to live in one of those apartment buildings that used to be part o…

This sounds similar to what Barcelona is trying to with something called "Superblocks"

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#378

Post by wahern »

nostrademons wrote: post #315
nkoren wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

IME it's because SF homeowners have created a narrative that says any new development threatens (and can only ever threaten) rent control. There are many theories--induced demand, Ellis Act evictions, destruction of rent-controller properties--but the narrative is the same.

Therefore, if you're worried about protecting the security of renters (who constitute about 2/3 of residents) and especially low-income renters then unless you know any better the predominate political narrative is to oppose new development.

The narrative is deeply entrenched. For example, the narrative says (among other things) that new development destroys rent controlled properties as any building newer than 1995 is exempt from rent control under state law. But rather than lobby to change the state law to make it easier to expand rent control (i.e. some sort of quid pro quo--expand rent control at the same pace as new development so total rent-controlled units stay the same) people just reflexively oppose new development.

Because homeowners have co-opted the disparate opposition groups, the potential for compromise and novel solutions is stonewalled and never communicated through normal channels (community groups, neighborhood papers, ballot initiatives, City Hall backrooms, etc). All the voters know is to oppose development. Full stop.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#380

Post by JDiculous »

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…

Manhattan feels way more congested than Tokyo. In Herald Square and Times Square, pedestrian traffic is so overwhelming it often halts to a standstill. I never really felt uncomfortably overcrowded in Tokyo.
Post reply on HN