Live data from Hacker News

Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

bloomberg.com

81–90 of 308 posts

Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

#81

> For one thing, there are autos all over Paris, so at least in principle it ought to be possible to build in ways that are both highly attractive and allow for cars. The presence of cars does not mean it was built for cars. The most important difference between pre-war and post-war neighborhoods is that one was built FOR cars

also not to mention that Paris is one of the forerunners when it comes to actually getting rid of them again. In some European cities driving is more like trench warfare, trying to drive through parts of Rome at peak hours is quite an experience.

Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

#82
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like some suburbs. However, not far from downtown San Jose, within the city limits, there is some interesting tract housing developments: they have soundwall like structures surrounding these neighborhoods that are built like a maze. Once in it can be hard to find your way out without GPS to one of the few entrances/exits. So that’s in a city, not even the maligned suburbs!

Are those single family zoned? Because if so they're also responsible for housing prices being insane in the area

Pretty sure they are. Look at a map of San Jose and check out the areas around Quimby or Tully Roads in east(ern) San Jose.

Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

#83
If you ask the objective and measurable question of which neighborhoods tourists pay money to see, the answers are almost exclusively older neighborhoods,

That doesn't sound like a good objective measure of what is a "nice" neighborhood -- I visit a lot of places as a tourist that I wouldn't want to live in. We have the neighborhoods we have because people are choosing to live in them.

Some things, like a central car free housing core with cars relegated to the outside edges of the neighborhood sounds attractive on paper (and for some people in real life too), but when you picture yourself schlepping groceries 2 blocks to your house, or walking the baby out in the rain to the car to take her to the doctor, it's less attractive for living, at least to those accustomed to living in the American car culture.

But really, it comes down to the bottom line -- people prefer to pay less than to pay more. If houses in a cookie cutter boring neighborhood cost 10% less than the ones in a planned neighborhood that's objectively nicer, it's going to be a lot harder to sell those expensive homes. So the developer's not going to build them in the first place.

Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

#84
post #62

> For one thing, there are autos all over Paris, so at least in principle it ought to be possible to build in ways that are both highly attractive and allow for cars. The presence of cars does not mean it was built for cars. The most important difference between pre-war and post-war neighborhoods is that one was built FOR cars

How did the author miss the point of cars so much? > One common explanation for the decline of urban and neighborhood beauty is the rise of the automobile, which makes it harder to develop such places. Surely cars and traffic can ruin many an attractive scene. Still, this is not even close to a full answer. For one thing, there are autos all over Paris, so at least in principle it ought to be possible to build in way…

In the suburban neighborhoods built around cars I live by there are still many people walking around, kids playing and riding bikes, people growing gardens, lots of trees, and lots of friendly neighbors. Also if you choose to live in a smaller city (say < 500k?) the air quality can be quite fantastic. The quality of suburban life imo is a lot better than what people on HN tend to make it out to be. HN is rather hyperbolic.

Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

#85
post #68
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

North American houses from my UK perspective: - Detached no matter the cost - so close they may as well be terraced, but they'll be detached 'gah-damnit'! - Garage in front. I.. ok. Practical I suppose. Bloody ugly. - Fake shutters!! I'm mentioning it last but it bugs me the most. At least have them wide enough that they look like they might be usable. But no, inch-wide 'shutters' on a six-foot window, why not.

Detached makes sense, you need to airgap for noise

The airgap costs you in energy terms in most climates in N. America.

Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

#87
post #13

We've lost all sense of aesthetics as something that exists outside an individual's mind. Aesthetics used to be an independent study of philosophers for millenia, until our modern age decided that all aesthetics are equally good. This fundamentally has to do with the embrace of relativism at all levels of society. This is going to be controversial, but in the west, the ultimate cause of the decline in objective beaut…

Our ruling class is extremely moralizing. They aren't relativist at all.

They only seem that way to you because their morality isn't identical to yours (though they are genealogically related)

Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

#88
post #62

> For one thing, there are autos all over Paris, so at least in principle it ought to be possible to build in ways that are both highly attractive and allow for cars. The presence of cars does not mean it was built for cars. The most important difference between pre-war and post-war neighborhoods is that one was built FOR cars

How did the author miss the point of cars so much? > One common explanation for the decline of urban and neighborhood beauty is the rise of the automobile, which makes it harder to develop such places. Surely cars and traffic can ruin many an attractive scene. Still, this is not even close to a full answer. For one thing, there are autos all over Paris, so at least in principle it ought to be possible to build in way…

> where people don't share space … Airplanes repeat the pattern

What do you mean? The person ahead of me on airplanes shares my lap space on the regular.

Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

#89
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this very much reinforces my point. 100% focus on the structure itself (especially interior) and relatively zero on the neighborhood or exterior. In a word, atomized.

“How dare people build houses for themselves to live in and not for me to look at !?”

That's a clever twist of phrasing. You could just as easily have said "How dare people build houses for themselves instead of thinking about all the other people that have to look at them?"

Clearly, there's some tension between these two goals, and the balance shifts back and forth over time.

Re: Why can't we build nice neighborhoods anymore?

#90

One thing that drives me insane about modern neighborhoods is the instance in tearing down every damn tree... so you are left with endless unshaded lawn. You would think with this modern movement towards reconnecting with nature, etc we would build neighborhoods that work with the surrounding environment instead of tearing it all down and flattening everything.

I used to joke about the first neighbourhood I lived in after university that they developers named the streets after the type of trees the cut down ... 30 years later that neighbourhood finally has some semblance of tree cover.
Post reply on HN