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

391–400 of 429 posts

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#391

Post by rebuilder »

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…

Surely it's not that surprising that a single label can't describe all opinions people may have?

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#392

Post by lstyls »

brailsafe wrote: post #385
lstyls wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes sense to me. Street-level retail != walkability. Anyone who has tried to walk from a suburban stripmall to another right next door can attest to this.

That's where it's important to consider the often sprawling nature of suburbs and how they're inherently unwalkable. While that is definitely a problem, it seems to be a sprawling problem.

Its not a suburb or sprawl problem. It's a car problem.

I now live in Manhattan, the most densely populated chunk of the US. Any time I walk somewhere I spend about half the time waiting for lights so that I can safely cross a street.

Cars are massively subsidized by government.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#393

Post by jacobolus »

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…

Somerville is a very dense city by American standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...

It would also be illegal to build almost any of Somerville as it exists using current building codes, in Somerville. Discussion from a year and a half ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11918230

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#394

Post by brailsafe »

lstyls wrote: post #392
brailsafe wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's where it's important to consider the often sprawling nature of suburbs and how they're inherently unwalkable. While that is definitely a problem, it seems to be a sprawling problem.

Its not a suburb or sprawl problem. It's a car problem. I now live in Manhattan, the most densely populated chunk of the US. Any time I walk somewhere I spend about half the time waiting for lights so that I can safely cross a street. Cars are massively subsidized by government.

Well, I don't disagree at all, but would argue that it's kind of a circular dependency problem. Sprawl would exist without cars to be sure, but cars make it much easier to expand, which increases dependency on cars, which supports sprawl. Then the people who have moved outward use their cars to work in the city because there's nothing in the suburbs and a poorly designed city (or one that is dependant on the people with cars) prioritizes that.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#395

Post by Endy »

lstyls wrote: post #392
brailsafe wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's where it's important to consider the often sprawling nature of suburbs and how they're inherently unwalkable. While that is definitely a problem, it seems to be a sprawling problem.

Its not a suburb or sprawl problem. It's a car problem. I now live in Manhattan, the most densely populated chunk of the US. Any time I walk somewhere I spend about half the time waiting for lights so that I can safely cross a street. Cars are massively subsidized by government.

As someone who walks in Manhattan, I see where you're coming from, but my experience differs. Specifically, 99% of the time I'm walking in Manhattan, I'm not trying to get somewhere on the same street or avenue I started on, so I can turn and walk along whatever block to avoid the lights. Plus (at least in the 40s), there are plenty of subway entries/passages where you don't need to pay but can pass through to get underneath the street - and buildings you can pass through as well. Of course, figuring out this maze is half the "fun" of walking in Manhattan.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#396

Post by dx034 »

del82 wrote: post #19
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…

Interestingly, Strong Towns published an article a bit more than a week ago about why mandating ground-floor retail is also not the best way to go: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/1/8/mixed-up-priori...

You can see that in parts of London. If you have more retail-only space than demand, the area quickly deteriorates. It's much better to have some retail space mixed with offices. That allows to react more flexibly to changes in demand.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#397

Post by dx034 »

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.

Oxford St wasn't made for cars (horse carriages rather) and will likely be closed to traffic in a few years. There were some projects in the 70s-80s to make the city more car-friendly (mainly via one-way roads) but they're about to reverse that to slow down traffic. One of the busiest junctions in the city (bank) has already been closed to all traffic except buses during the day.

Having slow traffic helps pedestrians and increases the incentive to use the tube instead of a cab or car.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#398

Post by mcv »

lstyls wrote: post #234
rm999 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird - I visited Chicago a couple years ago from NYC and was shocked at how pedestrian-unfriendly central parts of Chicago seemed (e.g. River North). There were parking lots everywhere , with aggressive drivers pulling in and out. I walked through a parking lot to go to a liquor store and was almost run over. Sometimes crossing a large street felt like a race against the green light. Jaywalking signaled to drivers t…

This makes sense to me. Street-level retail != walkability. Anyone who has tried to walk from a suburban stripmall to another right next door can attest to this.

I was thinking more of people sitting outside bars and restaurants blocking the sidewalk, as often happens in the center of Amsterdam.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#399

Post by lstyls »

brailsafe wrote: post #394
lstyls wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not a suburb or sprawl problem. It's a car problem. I now live in Manhattan, the most densely populated chunk of the US. Any time I walk somewhere I spend about half the time waiting for lights so that I can safely cross a street. Cars are massively subsidized by government.

Well, I don't disagree at all, but would argue that it's kind of a circular dependency problem. Sprawl would exist without cars to be sure, but cars make it much easier to expand, which increases dependency on cars, which supports sprawl. Then the people who have moved outward use their cars to work in the city because there's nothing in the suburbs and a poorly designed city (or one that is dependant on the people w…

Definitely. Suburbia could not exist without cars.

Re: Walkable Streets Are More Economically Productive

#400

Post by Bromskloss »

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…

> mandates that all new development from a simple three-story building to a 100-story skyscraper has retail at its base

This presumably drives things away from market equilibrium (a mandate wouldn't have been needed otherwise). What is it that gets to bear the cost of this? Does the cost come in the shape of, say, fewer homes, or fewer offices? Is the intent to make the city a better place, but for fewer people (compared to what a market would have done)?

Post reply on HN