3 ms·

I'm not that excited about it. Intelligent Transportation (the Google vans with wifi) is a great way to make the commute more productive for people--but to the

by aphyr 17y ago

I'm not that excited about it. Intelligent Transportation (the Google vans with wifi) is a great way to make the commute more productive for people--but to the extent that this technology encourages urban sprawl, I'm against it. Commuting still carries a high energy cost; much higher than the (amortized) cost of designing livable neighborhoods near jobs in the first place. And children never leaving their cars or garages? What the hell kind of world is this? Whatever happened to just riding your bike down the street to the library or friend's house?

vl 17y ago
The problem is that when couple starts to live together even if one of them is close to work, other still has to commute.
randallsquared 17y ago
much higher than the (amortized) cost of designing livable neighborhoods near jobs in the first place. Do you expect to change homes as much as you change jobs? If not, the fact that your home is walking distance from your old job just doesn't seem like a bonus. And children never leaving their cars or garages? What the hell kind of world is this? Whatever happened to just riding your bike down the street to the library or friend's house? That's still possible; the world we live in is just one where people are effectively wealthier, so it's no big deal to go to a better library that's 10 miles away, or to be able to stay in touch with friends who've moved across town. It's hard for me to see the expanded possibilities as a bad thing. The kind of world we live in now is better than the world in which kids were limited to whatever was nearby.
- aphyr 17y ago
  "Do you expect to change homes as much as you change jobs? If not, the fact that your home is walking distance from your old job just doesn't seem like a bonus." Good point, but I don't think it invalidates my argument. Most people relocate to within 50 miles when switching jobs. They also don't need extensive commutes when they live within 4 miles. The only time when a segregated work-home plan is as efficient as a mixed-use plan is when someone switches jobs, is over 4 miles away, less than 50 miles away, and chooses not to relocate locally. I suspect (without evidence) that it is still more efficient to plan for livable distributed cities instead of commuting an hour and a half per day. (I'm making a lot of approximations and estimates here with the absence of quantitative data... hope it sounds reasonable still.) I live in SF, and the number of people who live here because San Jose or Palo Alto suck, but still commute eighty miles per day, is staggering. "That's still possible; the world we live in is just one where people are effectively wealthier, so it's no big deal to go to a better library that's 10 miles away, or to be able to stay in touch with friends who've moved across town. It's hard for me to see the expanded possibilities as a bad thing. The kind of world we live in now is better than the world in which kids were limited to whatever was nearby." Agreed. Expanded possibilities are great! What concerns me is that kids (and adults, perhaps) lead increasingly isolated lives. I view walking around, biking, public spaces, parks, and woodlands as good experiences that cost very little. That's purely a moral stance; nobody has to agree. P.S. How do you do quotes? I'm totally stymied!
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    What I was doing was just using asterisks around things, like this. I don't know of a separate quoting markup for HN, like reddit has, though I sometimes still slip and put > in front of quoted lines. I suspect (without evidence) that it is still more efficient to plan for livable distributed cities instead of commuting an hour and a half per day. Oh, I don't disagree that it's more efficient, in terms of energy. I think that people mostly value other things more than efficiency, though. People don't seem to like living next to factories or office parks, unless those spaces are themselves transformed into beautiful areas like parks, but doing that raises the cost of construction considerably, negating much of the efficiency advantage, I'd expect. Basically, the only (non-forceful) way to make a lasting change in a situation is to improve people's lives in their own estimation, and if they currently would rather spend an hour commuting than live near offices or factories, you'll need to spend some time seeing what could be changed about living near offices or factories to make that happen. Good luck! :)
    - aphyr 17y ago
      You're right; nobody likes living next to a factory or power plant. But that doesn't mean you have to live twenty miles away. I lived in Madison, WI for two years; being on an isthmus, they've had to cram city government, utilities, shopping, the biggest university in the state, and residential housing all into an eight block wide strip. The city is extremely livable! Walking and biking around the city is fantastic and the culture is vibrant. In fact, given that its an isthmus I thought I'd have to bike farther to get to anything, but it turned out that sports leagues, parks, and city events were always within 4 miles. There was a coal-fired power plant a few blocks from my house, and a nuclear reactor a couple miles down the coast near Middleton--supposedly one of the US's nicest suburbs to live in--and people really want to live in both cities. Maybe it's just a problem of experience. I've lived my whole life in Portland OR, small-town Minnesota, Madison WI, and now San Francisco. Maybe I just got lucky by living in places where an urban growth boundary happened to work, or a city with insane geographic constraints. It's obviously not a representative sample, which makes me think I need more quantitative evidence to support the model. Still, I think these examples suggest that in certain cases it is possible to constrain sprawl.
bradtem 17y ago
Well, one may be against sprawl, but the point is that you can't really stop people from doing what they want to do. You can bend behaviour with the odd law but not that much. Governments have tried to stop sprawl in tons of ways but they don't have much success. However, we can try to examine where it's going and plan what can be done within the context of what's possible to do
- aphyr 17y ago
  It may not be possible to stop people from doing what they want, but what they want can certainly be influenced by city planning. Fly over Portland, OR and compare to Minneapolis; the difference in layout is staggering. Even when you include population and geography--the urban growth boundary has a significant effect.

by aphyr 17y ago

vl 17y ago

The problem is that when couple starts to live together even if one of them is close to work, other still has to commute.

randallsquared 17y ago

much higher than the (amortized) cost of designing livable neighborhoods near jobs in the first place. Do you expect to change homes as much as you change jobs? If not, the fact that your home is walking distance from your old job just doesn't seem like a bonus. And children never leaving their cars or garages? What the hell kind of world is this? Whatever happened to just riding your bike down the street to the library or friend's house? That's still possible; the world we live in is just one where people are effectively wealthier, so it's no big deal to go to a better library that's 10 miles away, or to be able to stay in touch with friends who've moved across town. It's hard for me to see the expanded possibilities as a bad thing. The kind of world we live in now is better than the world in which kids were limited to whatever was nearby.

aphyr 17y ago
"Do you expect to change homes as much as you change jobs? If not, the fact that your home is walking distance from your old job just doesn't seem like a bonus." Good point, but I don't think it invalidates my argument. Most people relocate to within 50 miles when switching jobs. They also don't need extensive commutes when they live within 4 miles. The only time when a segregated work-home plan is as efficient as a mixed-use plan is when someone switches jobs, is over 4 miles away, less than 50 miles away, and chooses not to relocate locally. I suspect (without evidence) that it is still more efficient to plan for livable distributed cities instead of commuting an hour and a half per day. (I'm making a lot of approximations and estimates here with the absence of quantitative data... hope it sounds reasonable still.) I live in SF, and the number of people who live here because San Jose or Palo Alto suck, but still commute eighty miles per day, is staggering. "That's still possible; the world we live in is just one where people are effectively wealthier, so it's no big deal to go to a better library that's 10 miles away, or to be able to stay in touch with friends who've moved across town. It's hard for me to see the expanded possibilities as a bad thing. The kind of world we live in now is better than the world in which kids were limited to whatever was nearby." Agreed. Expanded possibilities are great! What concerns me is that kids (and adults, perhaps) lead increasingly isolated lives. I view walking around, biking, public spaces, parks, and woodlands as good experiences that cost very little. That's purely a moral stance; nobody has to agree. P.S. How do you do quotes? I'm totally stymied!
- randallsquared 17y ago
  What I was doing was just using asterisks around things, like this. I don't know of a separate quoting markup for HN, like reddit has, though I sometimes still slip and put > in front of quoted lines. I suspect (without evidence) that it is still more efficient to plan for livable distributed cities instead of commuting an hour and a half per day. Oh, I don't disagree that it's more efficient, in terms of energy. I think that people mostly value other things more than efficiency, though. People don't seem to like living next to factories or office parks, unless those spaces are themselves transformed into beautiful areas like parks, but doing that raises the cost of construction considerably, negating much of the efficiency advantage, I'd expect. Basically, the only (non-forceful) way to make a lasting change in a situation is to improve people's lives in their own estimation, and if they currently would rather spend an hour commuting than live near offices or factories, you'll need to spend some time seeing what could be changed about living near offices or factories to make that happen. Good luck! :)
  - aphyr 17y ago
    You're right; nobody likes living next to a factory or power plant. But that doesn't mean you have to live twenty miles away. I lived in Madison, WI for two years; being on an isthmus, they've had to cram city government, utilities, shopping, the biggest university in the state, and residential housing all into an eight block wide strip. The city is extremely livable! Walking and biking around the city is fantastic and the culture is vibrant. In fact, given that its an isthmus I thought I'd have to bike farther to get to anything, but it turned out that sports leagues, parks, and city events were always within 4 miles. There was a coal-fired power plant a few blocks from my house, and a nuclear reactor a couple miles down the coast near Middleton--supposedly one of the US's nicest suburbs to live in--and people really want to live in both cities. Maybe it's just a problem of experience. I've lived my whole life in Portland OR, small-town Minnesota, Madison WI, and now San Francisco. Maybe I just got lucky by living in places where an urban growth boundary happened to work, or a city with insane geographic constraints. It's obviously not a representative sample, which makes me think I need more quantitative evidence to support the model. Still, I think these examples suggest that in certain cases it is possible to constrain sprawl.

bradtem 17y ago

Well, one may be against sprawl, but the point is that you can't really stop people from doing what they want to do. You can bend behaviour with the odd law but not that much. Governments have tried to stop sprawl in tons of ways but they don't have much success. However, we can try to examine where it's going and plan what can be done within the context of what's possible to do

aphyr 17y ago
It may not be possible to stop people from doing what they want, but what they want can certainly be influenced by city planning. Fly over Portland, OR and compare to Minneapolis; the difference in layout is staggering. Even when you include population and geography--the urban growth boundary has a significant effect.