10 ms·

This topic is discussed at length in the book, "Green Metropolis". It's part of a bigger issue of always putting cars first. You can't build a large building wi

by JDDunn9 10y ago

This topic is discussed at length in the book, "Green Metropolis". It's part of a bigger issue of always putting cars first. You can't build a large building without first doing a traffic study. If you bring too much traffic, you can't build it. Never mind that traffic is about the only cost in America that you can increase to make public transportation more appealing. Generally U.S. building codes include a maximum building height, and require minimum parking spaces. Many European cities have maximum parking spaces, and minimum building height. The latter produces higher population densities which make public transportation possible. We need to push back against suburban sprawl and the car-first design. No required parking, no free curbside parking, and a carbon tax on gasoline. Once cities get a population density >7 people per acre, public transportation becomes viable. Population density follows a logarithmic curve with miles traveled per person, so you get as much of a reduction from moving from 2 to 20 people per square acre, as from 20 to 200.

closeparen 10y ago
I propose a fundamental principle that should be obvious, but apparently isn't. Public policy should aim to improve average quality of life in the short, medium, and long terms. We live in low-population-density areas because we get more, higher quality housing for less money, shorter lines, less crowded public places. We drive instead of taking transit because we get where we're going faster and more comfortably, sitting down, with our personal space bubbles intact. Everything is tradeoffs. You can already make these tradeoffs for yourself by moving to SF or Manhattan, which is generally ill-advised unless you make so much that the astronomical housing costs don't hurt too badly. Why should the rest of us be required to make these tradeoffs? What are we getting in return? 'Cause it sure isn't better commutes or better homes. If your argument is long-term sustainability, we have electric cars now and we've had nuclear power for quite some time, and a public policy kick in that direction is, I'd argue, critical to long-term quality of life.
- jschwartzi 10y ago
  Part of the purpose of a public place is for people to be around other people. Considering that, isn't it counterproductive to actively work to make them less crowded?
- JDDunn9 10y ago
  Many of the benefits you listed are good examples of how people are actually pretty bad at predicting what will make them happier. We have a lot of data on the subject. - People think that living in a larger home will make them happier than a shorter commute. Cohort studies show the opposite is true. We adapt most quickly to things (good/bad) that stay the same (like the size of your house), and poorly to things that change (like the traffic situation from day to day). - People think they will be more active if surrounded by parks and greenery, but city dwellers actually walk/bike more. People moving to the city lose weight within a few months (~3 lb. if I remember correctly) - People think that cities are dangerous, but you are more likely to be killed young in the suburbs. This is because car accidents are far more likely than homicides, and you drive more in the suburbs. We know people in cities are, on average, happier and healthier.
  - mjevans 10y ago
    I think this depends vastly on the city. An unhealthy city won't have these kinds of benefits. I think, particularly in the climate that I'm in, a /cave of steel/ style city WOULD have those benefits. If instead of streets for cars we had a mesh of (Babylon 5 style) 'zocolo' (sp) markets that had smaller storefronts and a lightly park like median.
  - hvidgaard 10y ago
    It's a funny thing. I don't mind a long commute, of say, 1 hour each way mostly highway. I can use that time to listen to podcasts, audiobooks, or music. Things I rarely find time to in my daily life. But if I have 1 hour commute in heavy traffic, I feel that I'm wasting my time. The former I'm okay with, the latter I avoid at all cost, even if the net result is the same for me.
    - criddell 10y ago
      If you had a self-driving car, do you think the heavy traffic or even stop-and-go traffic would be as bothersome?
      - 10y ago
- adrianN 10y ago
  Quality of life is very difficult to measure. Average quality of life is probably worse than median quality of life. What about minimum quality of live? Should we make the life of the very poor worse if it improves the lives of the middle class? I think the problem is a lot more difficult than what can be addressed with a single sentence.
- verbify 10y ago
  > You can already make these tradeoffs for yourself by moving to SF or Manhattan, which is generally ill-advised unless you make so much that the astronomical housing costs don't hurt too badly. The shoe is on the other foot. The reason why rent is so high in these places is because there's a lot of demand to live there - people do find it desirable. If more cities were built like SF or Manhattan (i.e. there was more supply) then it would be more affordable to more people. The reason these places should be built is because people clearly like it. That's the advantage.
  - tjic 10y ago
    > The reason why rent is so high in these places is because there's a lot of demand to live there - No. Mere demand alone does not raise costs. There is a lot of demand for water, but it is still super cheap. Prices are high when demand is high and supply is low. The reason that prices in Manhattan and SF are high is because (a) lots of people want to live there, and simultaneously (b) government policies severely limit the ability of developers to generate more housing units there.
    - verbify 10y ago
      You've worded it better, so thank you, but I believe my main point stands.
    - Klockan 10y ago
      Exactly, and since high density cities are more common in Europe it is also more affordable there.
    - freehunter 10y ago
      I've heard stories about SF's housing problems, but not about Manhattan. I know Manhattan is expensive, but it's also full of some of the tallest buildings in the world, and more are built every day. Are there actually policies restricting housing in Manhattan?
      - snrplfth 10y ago
- SixSigma 10y ago
  I have recently moved to Miami from the UK. I am not enjoying the low-density lifestyle. The lack of useful public transit (4 hours for a 20 mile trip because of cross scheduling). It feels like I live inside a ring of steel and rubber - if I want to leave my local area after work it is 2 hours for a 15 mile round trip. No clustering of shops that generate footfall which builds a sense of community and opportunity for new business - drive to shop, buy thing, drive away. There is no discovery. I haven't owned a car in the UK for 10 years, now I need one to buy groceries. I do appreciate that I could move somewhere else and seek out those things in other communities but I am tied to my geography by work. If I was here long term I would certainly try and move jobs to get better quality of life.
vbezhenar 10y ago
I live in city, where there're problems with parking, everything is tight, no suburbs, etc. And US looks like a dream for me. Living outside this city, driving fast lanes? I would love to live there, I hate public transportations and I hate concentrated people.
- strictnein 10y ago
  You wouldn't know it from reading the comments here, but plenty of people in the US really enjoy the suburbs, myself included.
userbinator 10y ago
I don't think that many people actually want higher population densities.
- mschuetz 10y ago
  I do! I'm from Austria/Vienna and I love our high density cityscapes. There is no need for a car in cities since you can get anywhere with public transport. I usually use my bike, though, which has a huge part of the city within 20 minutes driving distance. In comparison, when I was working in Santa Clara, CA, there was virtually nothing within 20 minutes and the public transport was next to useless. I'm also not a fan of the huge expressways every other corner. Not my kind of city.
  - paganel 10y ago
    > There is no need for a car in cities since you can get anywhere with public transport Visiting Vienna some time ago was the first time when I realized that if I ever were to move to another city from the one I'm currently living in (a capital city in Eastern Europe) that city would need to have a decent tramway network, just like Vienna does (trolley-buses also count). Relying only on cars or Diesel-hungry buses for carrying people around a big city is barbarous. It also counts that I don't like taking the metro, as traveling 45 minutes - 1 hour per day underground doesn't fit my idea of "good travel".
    - briandear 10y ago
      Vienna is definitely an outlier in terms of awesome. It's one of the more "perfect" cities in terms of size and connectivity. I might argue that Zurich is right up with it. However, Paris is overrated in terms of transport -- summer on the RER or the metro is rather close to hell in my book. No air conditioning and sardine-like UX. Good luck if you have to go shopping, you had better go during off hours or you'll be unable to get your stuff on the train. But then again "off-hours" doesn't really exist in Paris since aside from stores in designated tourist zones, shops are required by law to close by 7pm. I think Berlin does a pretty good and London seems to manage the sprawl of the city rather well. For non-European cities, Seoul is one of my favorites. Extremely extensive subway, though admittedly during rush hour, it's positively insane. But you never have to walk more that 200 meters to get anywhere it seems.
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
> We need to push back against suburban sprawl and the car-first design. Yes, we should. Not going to happen though because Rich Folk(tm) don't walk or ride buses. Edit: I mean this in the sense that the whatever colored glasses they are looking through when they design the buildings/cities/etc don't allow them to see anything other than what they know.

by JDDunn9 10y ago

closeparen 10y ago

I propose a fundamental principle that should be obvious, but apparently isn't. Public policy should aim to improve average quality of life in the short, medium, and long terms. We live in low-population-density areas because we get more, higher quality housing for less money, shorter lines, less crowded public places. We drive instead of taking transit because we get where we're going faster and more comfortably, sitting down, with our personal space bubbles intact. Everything is tradeoffs. You can already make these tradeoffs for yourself by moving to SF or Manhattan, which is generally ill-advised unless you make so much that the astronomical housing costs don't hurt too badly. Why should the rest of us be required to make these tradeoffs? What are we getting in return? 'Cause it sure isn't better commutes or better homes. If your argument is long-term sustainability, we have electric cars now and we've had nuclear power for quite some time, and a public policy kick in that direction is, I'd argue, critical to long-term quality of life.

jschwartzi 10y ago
Part of the purpose of a public place is for people to be around other people. Considering that, isn't it counterproductive to actively work to make them less crowded?
JDDunn9 10y ago
Many of the benefits you listed are good examples of how people are actually pretty bad at predicting what will make them happier. We have a lot of data on the subject. - People think that living in a larger home will make them happier than a shorter commute. Cohort studies show the opposite is true. We adapt most quickly to things (good/bad) that stay the same (like the size of your house), and poorly to things that change (like the traffic situation from day to day). - People think they will be more active if surrounded by parks and greenery, but city dwellers actually walk/bike more. People moving to the city lose weight within a few months (~3 lb. if I remember correctly) - People think that cities are dangerous, but you are more likely to be killed young in the suburbs. This is because car accidents are far more likely than homicides, and you drive more in the suburbs. We know people in cities are, on average, happier and healthier.
- mjevans 10y ago
  I think this depends vastly on the city. An unhealthy city won't have these kinds of benefits. I think, particularly in the climate that I'm in, a /cave of steel/ style city WOULD have those benefits. If instead of streets for cars we had a mesh of (Babylon 5 style) 'zocolo' (sp) markets that had smaller storefronts and a lightly park like median.
- hvidgaard 10y ago
  It's a funny thing. I don't mind a long commute, of say, 1 hour each way mostly highway. I can use that time to listen to podcasts, audiobooks, or music. Things I rarely find time to in my daily life. But if I have 1 hour commute in heavy traffic, I feel that I'm wasting my time. The former I'm okay with, the latter I avoid at all cost, even if the net result is the same for me.
  - criddell 10y ago
    If you had a self-driving car, do you think the heavy traffic or even stop-and-go traffic would be as bothersome?
    - 10y ago
adrianN 10y ago
Quality of life is very difficult to measure. Average quality of life is probably worse than median quality of life. What about minimum quality of live? Should we make the life of the very poor worse if it improves the lives of the middle class? I think the problem is a lot more difficult than what can be addressed with a single sentence.
verbify 10y ago
> You can already make these tradeoffs for yourself by moving to SF or Manhattan, which is generally ill-advised unless you make so much that the astronomical housing costs don't hurt too badly. The shoe is on the other foot. The reason why rent is so high in these places is because there's a lot of demand to live there - people do find it desirable. If more cities were built like SF or Manhattan (i.e. there was more supply) then it would be more affordable to more people. The reason these places should be built is because people clearly like it. That's the advantage.
- tjic 10y ago
  > The reason why rent is so high in these places is because there's a lot of demand to live there - No. Mere demand alone does not raise costs. There is a lot of demand for water, but it is still super cheap. Prices are high when demand is high and supply is low. The reason that prices in Manhattan and SF are high is because (a) lots of people want to live there, and simultaneously (b) government policies severely limit the ability of developers to generate more housing units there.
  - verbify 10y ago
    You've worded it better, so thank you, but I believe my main point stands.
  - Klockan 10y ago
    Exactly, and since high density cities are more common in Europe it is also more affordable there.
  - freehunter 10y ago
    I've heard stories about SF's housing problems, but not about Manhattan. I know Manhattan is expensive, but it's also full of some of the tallest buildings in the world, and more are built every day. Are there actually policies restricting housing in Manhattan?
    - snrplfth 10y ago
SixSigma 10y ago
I have recently moved to Miami from the UK. I am not enjoying the low-density lifestyle. The lack of useful public transit (4 hours for a 20 mile trip because of cross scheduling). It feels like I live inside a ring of steel and rubber - if I want to leave my local area after work it is 2 hours for a 15 mile round trip. No clustering of shops that generate footfall which builds a sense of community and opportunity for new business - drive to shop, buy thing, drive away. There is no discovery. I haven't owned a car in the UK for 10 years, now I need one to buy groceries. I do appreciate that I could move somewhere else and seek out those things in other communities but I am tied to my geography by work. If I was here long term I would certainly try and move jobs to get better quality of life.

vbezhenar 10y ago

I live in city, where there're problems with parking, everything is tight, no suburbs, etc. And US looks like a dream for me. Living outside this city, driving fast lanes? I would love to live there, I hate public transportations and I hate concentrated people.

strictnein 10y ago
You wouldn't know it from reading the comments here, but plenty of people in the US really enjoy the suburbs, myself included.

userbinator 10y ago

I don't think that many people actually want higher population densities.

mschuetz 10y ago
I do! I'm from Austria/Vienna and I love our high density cityscapes. There is no need for a car in cities since you can get anywhere with public transport. I usually use my bike, though, which has a huge part of the city within 20 minutes driving distance. In comparison, when I was working in Santa Clara, CA, there was virtually nothing within 20 minutes and the public transport was next to useless. I'm also not a fan of the huge expressways every other corner. Not my kind of city.
- paganel 10y ago
  > There is no need for a car in cities since you can get anywhere with public transport Visiting Vienna some time ago was the first time when I realized that if I ever were to move to another city from the one I'm currently living in (a capital city in Eastern Europe) that city would need to have a decent tramway network, just like Vienna does (trolley-buses also count). Relying only on cars or Diesel-hungry buses for carrying people around a big city is barbarous. It also counts that I don't like taking the metro, as traveling 45 minutes - 1 hour per day underground doesn't fit my idea of "good travel".
  - briandear 10y ago
    Vienna is definitely an outlier in terms of awesome. It's one of the more "perfect" cities in terms of size and connectivity. I might argue that Zurich is right up with it. However, Paris is overrated in terms of transport -- summer on the RER or the metro is rather close to hell in my book. No air conditioning and sardine-like UX. Good luck if you have to go shopping, you had better go during off hours or you'll be unable to get your stuff on the train. But then again "off-hours" doesn't really exist in Paris since aside from stores in designated tourist zones, shops are required by law to close by 7pm. I think Berlin does a pretty good and London seems to manage the sprawl of the city rather well. For non-European cities, Seoul is one of my favorites. Extremely extensive subway, though admittedly during rush hour, it's positively insane. But you never have to walk more that 200 meters to get anywhere it seems.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

> We need to push back against suburban sprawl and the car-first design. Yes, we should. Not going to happen though because Rich Folk(tm) don't walk or ride buses. Edit: I mean this in the sense that the whatever colored glasses they are looking through when they design the buildings/cities/etc don't allow them to see anything other than what they know.