Live data from Hacker News

What a City Would Look Like If It Were Designed for Only Bikes

fastcoexist.com

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: What a City Would Look Like If It Were Designed for Only Bikes

#91
post #47

I'm a cyclist and I love the idea of making cities more bike friendly, but this group of designers has missed a major point. Cities are for PEOPLE. Not for cars, not for bikes, but for humans. Space for people to live and exist in should be the highest priority, and anytime you start cutting into living space to make more room for vehicles, you're making the city less human friendly. That's what these guys seem to be…

> This redesigned city needs to make room for people who aren't 25 years old and single.

Those privileged scum can live out in the suburbs so that us hipsters can live in peace.

Re: What a City Would Look Like If It Were Designed for Only Bikes

#92

I had thought the custom on HN was to post valuable, constructive comments, and not to find fault or to post typical Internet forum sniping and hyperbole. Perhaps it's my impression, but I've rarely seen anything constructive recently. Almost everything in this discussion, for example, is reaction and sniping ("useless", "absurd", "stupid", etc.). It's a way to hang out and socialize online; there's nothing wrong wit…

My comment is the only one using the word "absurd" so I take it you're talking about it. Let me try to defend it. I called the title misleading, so I shortly described the gist of it. I also opined it's absurd because the idea doesn't seem to have been thought through (because of the large amount of space dedicated to bikes, as I wrote). This was just a warning to other readers, so they aren't baited like I was. Noti…

Certainly I did not mean to make anyone feel accused; sorry. I purposely didn't name names or comments; I was just making a general point.

To address your points: Whatever someone's reasoning, words like 'absurd' create an atmosephere where ridicule and sniping are acceptable, which I think deters more thoughtful discussion. For one, other commenters follow the example and do the same (see my quotes of PG in my other post, above). But also, who wants to put the effort into a thoughtful comment, sharing what they know, when they see that the response may very well be more thoughtless ridicule? It attracts the worse comments and deters the valuable stuff.

> the reporting is done by someone who's just trying to grab pageviews cheaply on someone else's bad content

I see no basis for this statement. The author could have any number of reasons to post it, including that it's an excellent article in their or in other people's eyes.

Re: What a City Would Look Like If It Were Designed for Only Bikes

#93
post #47

I'm a cyclist and I love the idea of making cities more bike friendly, but this group of designers has missed a major point. Cities are for PEOPLE. Not for cars, not for bikes, but for humans. Space for people to live and exist in should be the highest priority, and anytime you start cutting into living space to make more room for vehicles, you're making the city less human friendly. That's what these guys seem to be…

Cars are not particularly inclusive of people older than 5 and younger than 16, people too old to drive safely (okay, they are, but they shouldn't be), people who don't have several hundred dollars per month for a payment + insurance + gas + maintenance, people whose apartments don't have parking spaces (seriously, why drive if the nearest parking space to your home is sometimes further than the nearest train station?), etc.

Cars are inclusive of the most powerful demographic in America (middle-aged wealthy adults living the American Dream in the suburbs) but leave plenty of others behind.

Re: What a City Would Look Like If It Were Designed for Only Bikes

#94
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The situation of the elderly in Japan is an outlier.

Plenty of elderly in the Netherlands biking around too. Are they also an outlier? I mean, they kind of are, but only in the sense that they have a ton of good bike infrastructure. If we built bike infrastructure that well, we also could have elderly cyclists.

They also have very flat land and an amenable climate in the Netherlands.

Cycling becomes significantly harder in hilly or windy (read coastal) locations.

I live somewhere generally considered "flat" as there are no mountains, however there are a lot of undulations (short, steep hills) and a Mediterranean climate (hot, dry summers) with strong, coastal winds in the morning and afternoon. Cycling any distance in summer will involve sweating. Most people opt to drive in an air-conditioned car, even the 1 km to get some milk/bread.

Better/more bike infrastructure is unlikely to change most peoples behavior.

Having said that, there has been a boom in the number of people cycling to work in the last 10 years. There are two main reasons for this. One is the low availability/high cost of car parking in the city and surrounding suburbs. The other is that we get the Tour de France televised on free to air, during prime time for the entire tour. That has driven a huge increase in road cycling and even non-cyclists like to watch and talk about what is happening in the Tour.

Re: What a City Would Look Like If It Were Designed for Only Bikes

#95
post #39
post #3

A bike ramp into the apartment is useless. You can just take the elevator with your bike, or you know... Just make a garage for bikes on ground floor. The article doesn't really say much about how to design a city for bicycles, which mostly comes down to providing good roads where you aren't bothered by cars.

It's certainly not useless. It allows you to bring your bike right to where you live and you can avoid having to make an extra stop in the basement or somewhere else to store/retrieve your bike. Even when I've lived places with bike storage I kept my bike in my apartment. It's far more convenient and security even in an apartment garage is not perfect.

Yea, like I said: elevators can be used for that. I take my race bike in the elevator up to the 21st floor every day and park it in my appartment.

Re: What a City Would Look Like If It Were Designed for Only Bikes

#96
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other than all the other people that outbid you for less distant homes, you mean. Or those who consistently NIMBY-veto any potential development of high-rise residential buildings near their existing homes. Or the zoning boards that outlaw the very concept of homes being adjacent to businesses. Actually, there are quite a lot of people who force me to live further away from my job than is strictly necessary. They are…

No. Sorry, but it's still you who choose to live that far away from your job. You could have chosen another job, or you could have chosen to spend more money on a house, or buy less house. Nobody forced you to live where you do right now. That decision was all you.

So you're basically telling me it's my fault for not being rich enough to do what I want. Thanks.

If I had unlimited time and unlimited funds, I could certainly shorten my commute down to the distance from my bedroom to my in-home office, all in my palatial mansion in the heart of a culturally vibrant, crime-free, educated, and thriving city. Unfortunately, living in the real world, there are external constraints upon my decisions that I have no individual control over. Those constraints rule out the fantasy that you seem to have invented wherein I can just choose to be Batman in my Batcave, and the local government begs me for my help via a spotlight, instead of constantly demanding that I jump through whatever idiotic regulatory hoops it cares to set up.

In the real world, the amount I am paid for my work is determined by market conditions. The affordability of housing is determined by market conditions. The cost of living is determined by market conditions. Within those bounds, I make the best decisions I can, according to my own priorities. And yes, I do have higher priorities than being able to walk or bicycle to work. I believe those priorities cannot be greatly altered while still remaining a socially responsible person.

There are more variables involved than just home-office distance and pay rate. You have no idea what it would cost for me to halve my commute distance, or to quarter it. It may well be the difference between retiring at age 75 instead of 67, or not retiring ever. Or it may be the difference between helping my all my kids to pay college tuition, or not. Or maybe it's just the difference between eating fresh ground beef or canned Spam.

This is why I suggest it is foolish to blithely discount all those unseen individual reasons people have for following a particular lifestyle. People generally make the best decisions they can, using the resources they have available, according to the priorities they have established for themselves.

So when someone says, "I wish I could live closer to work," your response probably should not be, "You can, but you obviously don't want it enough." Because what you're conveying is that person is not enough of a selfish prick to make their spouse commute further, send their kids to lower-performing schools, spend more money on an apartment, house, or condo with less relative utility independent of its location, spend more money now at the expense of savings or investments, possibly uproot any existing social networks for other members of the household, maybe adapt to an entirely different culture in the new location, and even physically moving a truckload of accumulated property and possessions over some distance. What that person was really saying, without actually saying it, was, "I wish I could live closer to work without changing into a sociopath, ascetic, hermit, or hobo, and without switching to job that I would hate."

So maybe adopt a new priority, and make sure it ranks higher than biking to work: don't be a dick. That's it. Have some care for the daily struggles of your fellow humans. You might just find that redesigning entire cities to make cyclists happier has a side-effect of making all the non-cyclists absolutely miserable. And maybe the current automobile-centric design of cities is overly unfair to bikers. You can't just ignore bikers because you love driving. You have to consider the impact on everyone, not just your paragons, eidolons, and chosen ones.

Post reply on HN