New Cities • Hacker News Board

Re: New Cities

#681

Post by rtkwe » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 4:38 PM UTC

zanny wrote: post #350

rtkwe wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe in denser cities or downtown but where I live and work if I wanted to take a bus my easy 9 mile 20 minute drive becomes 60 to 90 minutes with 3 bus changes. That's a lot of ground to make up.

I hope the aspiration for new cities would start with the presumption of density. An experiment like this should be trying to solve a problem, not just add more urban sprawl, and you don't get a city culture off preplanned road infrastructure and zoning laws.

I think that any prosperous city will end up with some level of sprawl as people who prefer more space or businesses that need more space move to the area. Part of the goal will be to make sure that doesn't force the city center into becoming like every other with poor walking access.

Re: New Cities

#682

Post by galdosdi » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 5:01 PM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #617

galdosdi wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The other thing worth mentioning is that bikes/pedestrians can go anywhere cars can, but the opposite is not true. Your statement is only true for low speed roads. At higher speeds, it is impossible or unsafe for anyone to use the road unless they are also going at an equally high speed. So in practice, cars do NOT function as a lowest common denominator, but actively drive out other means of transportation because…

There's nothing that stops setting the speed limit on a highway to 25 MPH and allowing non-motorized transit. In San Francisco they did that to a highway along the waterfront, and vehicular traffic still moves fine.

Exactly right. Jurisdictions need to make these decisions intentionally, or else it is possible to make roads that not all users can use. Manhattan avenues are very similar to this, and are surprisingly usable for all three modes -- they are limited to 25 MPH, and are not limited access freeways, but can feel like one to a motorist in medium or better traffic because they are one way and the signals "travel" up the avenues at 25 MPH -- so as long as you can go the speed limit, you never need to stop, which is great for motorists, yet they're still reasonably usable by pedestrians and cyclists -- it helps that the speed limit is self enforcing in that there's no point in going much faster since then you'll hit a red light. The only thing that could make it better is probably to reduce to 20 MPH.

Re: New Cities

#683

Post by mastax » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 5:06 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #452

athenot wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For an extreme (and somewhat tongue-in-cheek) version of that, see The 5th Element. Everything happens in the sky and street-level becomes this shady area filled with trash and thugs. :)

Or Star Wars' planet Coruscant, or Futurama's New New York.

Or Deus Ex: Human Revolution's Shanghai

Re: New Cities

#684

Post by Kalium » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 5:07 PM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #677

Kalium wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Friend, I am aware of the "streetcar conspiracy". I am also aware that streetcars died out for reasons well beyond conspiracy. I am further aware of many areas where cars are very useful that never had streetcar systems to be destroyed by GM.

Not for nothing, but did you ever hear anyone say that a stranger who calls you "friend" isn't one? If not, you have now.

I sometimes use it as a polite stand-in for far less kind modes of address.

Re: New Cities

#685

Post by throwanem » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 5:09 PM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #684

throwanem wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not for nothing, but did you ever hear anyone say that a stranger who calls you "friend" isn't one? If not, you have now.

I sometimes use it as a polite stand-in for far less kind modes of address.

Consider leaving it, and them, out altogether.

Re: New Cities

#686

Post by huherto » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 5:18 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #382

Britain tried this after WWII, building about 20 "new towns".[1] China is doing it in a big way right now. Building isn't the hard part. The usual problem is a lack of jobs. Check out the US census population projection for the next 50 years.[2] Population is leveling off, and if immigration is restricted, it will decline. Most of the EU countries, and Japan, are already in population decline. Also see Fig. 6, "Depen…

This whole thread has been awesome. One of the things I learned is that Massachusetts just changed its laws to allow grandparents houses to be built within your lot. So grand parents get to live with their family, enjoy the grand kids ,etc. A byproduct is that they may free a lot of houses to be used for younger families.

Re: New Cities

#687

Post by threecleartones » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

I'd have loved to see Paolo Soleri's "Arcology" idea take off better than it has - Arcosanti is a cool place to visit, but you wouldn't want to live there :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology

Re: New Cities

#688

Post by PCMcGee » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 5:36 PM UTC

hydandata wrote: post #21

I have always really liked stuff from https://www.thevenusproject.com/ some of their ideas might seem crazyish but overall I think anybody thinking about designing new cities ought to at least take a look.

Fresco was unique in that all of his designs were based on testable, quantifiable evidence based assessments of reality. His designs for cities ended up looking like "utopias" because he started at the evidence based engineering level and built up from there, not because he imagined a utopia and worked backwards from his "vision". Most of the issues facing engineers when designing a city are issues with the way in which monetary economics works against efficient design, implementation of best practices, and sharing of resources. As cities and neighborhoods with attractive qualities of socialabilty become scarcer, gentrification leads to their destruction through over-valuation from increased market demand. It is nigh impossible to build a "shining city on the hill", where there is opportunity and abundance and happiness, and expect that the rest of the world will sit idly by in their squalor and applaud the achievement.

Re: New Cities

#689

Post by julespitt » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 5:38 PM UTC

hueving wrote: post #656

julespitt wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point about taking your car and heading to Tahoe and Yosemite, strictly speaking, is correct. However, speaking only for myself, I do not find it particularly urgent to make long-distance trips - presumably for leisure - within ten minutes of making the decision. The bigger question is - why is it strictly necessarily to have to use it for ten minutes - just to get milk ? And while most places in the US simply d…

>they run so frequently no one bothers to check the schedule Great if you live on a route popular enough that they do that. You are screwed otherwise. Even if you do live on a popular route, it also doesn't solve the problem if you want to go somewhere unpopular. >I do not find it particularly urgent to make long-distance trips - presumably for leisure - within ten minutes of making the decision. Good for you, but no…

>Great if you live on a route popular enough that they do that.

I was alluding to the fact that it a circular problem - frequent routes (within reason) become popular routes.

>it also doesn't solve the problem if you want to go somewhere unpopular.

The vast majority of trips are to popular locations, by definition. Everyone can still use cars for unpopular destinations.

>Waking up Saturday morning and deciding to drive out to a destination like this

One can wake up in the morning and decide to take a weekend trip without a car. The difference? It will take probably about an hour to get underway.

Meanwhile, a person in an urban area can have all of these car advantages for infrequent uses such as weekend trips or going somewhere unpopular with far less expense by having a Zipcar account.

Because I need milk for a recipe I just found online and I don't want to wait 15 minutes for the next train

Your perspective is very narrow. I asked why you should have to drive to get milk, your response is because you don't want to take a train to get milk.

There is a far simpler option than either of those.

Re: New Cities

#690

Post by zanny » Tue, Jun 28, 2016, 5:39 PM UTC

rwhitman wrote: post #76

One thing that really needs to be addressed is how to retrofit the glut of car-centric developments designed in the late 20th century, to better conform with the growing sense of value we have in walkable communities today. Navigating the minefield of local zoning politics to try and convert car-centric stripmall mcmansion suburbs into tighter village-like communities will be an enduring puzzle in America at least. T…

With distributed knowledge work and freedom of movement people want to be around their peers and like minded than the opposite. Thus they flood liberal cities.