8 ms·

The Future of Cities

58 points by Parbeyjr 10y ago

Synroc 10y ago
While I'm glad that this topic is getting addressed, that video was pretty difficult to watch. I know it would be unwise to spend extensive amounts of time on each topic in the video, but the way it was cut made it hard to think about the topic before moving on to the next part. Otherwise, this topic is likely what I want to focus my career in at some point, understanding how to improve the ways cities run, given how they are more and more the drivers of not only the economy, but a lot of the culture and thinking generated in the world. (As someone who grew up in global cities such as Singapore, Paris, etc., I always felt that these cities had more in common with each other than with other cities in the countries they are in.) I'm making my way through Jane Jacob's Life and Death of American Cities right now, and it has definitely changed a lot of my thinkings of how cities should be designed (more mixed-used, parks are not necessarily ideal, etc). I wonder how a company could be created to tackle the issues cities are facing these days, working with local governments (or without if need be).
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Philadelphia was the best-designed city, basically ever. Perfect grid, even spacing between residences, businesses, and parks, and you know what ended up happening? Nearly everybody piled up along the waterfronts, because that's where the action was. London, meanwhile, had never really been planned at all, and even well-intentioned planning often ended up straddling the line between disaster and farce. If you want to laugh a lot and learn about ways that London has been "developed" over the years, check out this guy's videos: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yUEHWhO_HdY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yUEHWhO_HdY
  - saeranv 10y ago
    I agree in spirit with you, but we should strive not to be reductive about the role of planning in cities. Slums are also unplanned.
    - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
      I guess I wasn't clear. My point is that planning isn't perfect, and will never solve all problems. An example from my hometown of Ithaca NY: this tiny valley was never built with cars in mind, and because there is a lake to the north and steep hills in every other direction, there are only about 6 ways in and out of Ithaca. Usually this isn't a problem but certain times of day the traffic comes to a complete stop as there is no physical way to relieve the congestion. If major charges to roadways were made, it could fix some of the congestion issues, but since nearly all travel through Ithaca revolves around The Commons (literally: one-way streets move traffic counterclockwise around the popular pedestrian mall), it could have a devastating effect on local businesses. I am convinced that no single entity is capable of creating and executing a plan that improves an urban area in any more than a limited portion without significant and unforeseen consequences. Speaking of slums: the original plans for public housing projects in big cities like New York failed to account for the lack of maintenance or the effects of drugs being sold or used on the premises, which matters a lot because one prolific drug dealer can drastically reduce quality of life for everybody in the building, especially if they are smart or small-time enough to avoid police interference, thus allowing dealers to become de facto authorities in the projects. That is an example of a planned (but unexpected) slum.
      - labster 10y ago
        There might be a company to fix Ithaca's traffic, but it would be Boring.
        rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
        Boooo /s Actually the solution could come from another EM company in the form of self-driving cars, as it would alleviate congestion just enough for it to stop being a problem anymore. The traffic issue really only focuses on certain chokepoints in and out of the city. You know the deal: everybody stopped at a series of red lights. Light at the front goes green, first car moves, second car behind it has space to move, and so on. If all the cars were able to start and stop in unison based on the state of the traffic lights then the congestion problems in Ithaca would disappear overnight. We aren't big enough to need (or be able to afford) massive infrastructure projects, and as I alluded to earlier, it probably wouldn't be worth the unforeseen consequences. Not to mention the downtown retailers are still reeling from the Commons reconstruction, which put way too many of my favorite stores out of business.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    I have much sympathy for the natural development over top-down design, but I have to point out that being symmetrical is not the same as being well designed. In fact, I'd say it's probably a good indication of bad city design.
- adrianN 10y ago
  It is my understanding that cities have been where culture, trade, and politics happen at least since the bronze age.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
  - lj3 10y ago
    > My personal approach is to build up better and better datasets (simulated, some taken from open datasets like the Building Performance Database) to slowly but surely force some evidence into these discussions. You'll fail using that approach. The NIMBYs don't make their decisions based on data. They make their opinions based on emotion. If you want to change their minds you need to appeal to their emotions. Run commercials in the NIMBY neighborhood that show poor, disadvantaged low income families who would get to live there if the tower went up. Make them feel ashamed for opposing towers and they'll stop opposing them. edit: Yes, this is a bad example, but the point remains. You must hit them in the feels.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
      - snrplfth 10y ago
        And mostly, new construction is not for low-income people, just because it's new. Low-income people tend to live in older buildings that have depreciated.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        snrplfth 10y ago
        Sure, the idea at least of Section 37 is effectively "local compensation". Too often it's "councillor's goodies for constituents money", and it's not much help when the Section 37 park gets built a kilometer away from the actual development. And often the locals don't want change anyways, so Section 37 stuff is not enticing. Makes sense in theory though.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
iammyIP 10y ago
I agree, could not watch it past 3 mins - too many editing gimmicks, looks like edutainment nonsense with many fluffy short statements and low actual information density. This video editing talent is wasted for such a topic, would be better used in a music video. Also the author really must hate music.
baron816 10y ago
"We do damage to nature...and we do less damage to nature when we occupy less of it." Edward Glaeser is the man.
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  I have to admit this line of thinking never really resonated with me, and it resonates even less as I get older. My goal in life is not to have minimum impact on my environment, and yes, that includes nature. I think the nuance of the middle gets lost in these conversations. The right tends to think humans should have dominion over all (while ignoring the fact that we haven't "conquered" nature, and we have ample evidence of the carnage we cause when we think we have), and the left seems to take an Agent Smith view that we're a plague upon the planet and need to be contained, quarantined, and engineered until we no longer impact anything (while ignoring the fact that this flatly isn't possible, or even desirable). So no, I do not believe that "we do damage to nature", because besides it being a nonsense statement, even the kernel of truth in it is wrong-headed in my opinion.
  - lg 10y ago
    everything from our pets to our lawns to our roads and farms does damage to biodiversity though, which ultimately makes all life less resilient.
    - Ericson2314 10y ago
      Yay I'm not the only one! Preserving biodiversity is oft-unstated most important goal of environmentalism. It's our meta-darwinian imperative.
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        Why would we care about biodiversity? There are only two reasons that come to my mind, and both IMO should be addressed directly: - because it's cool and fun to have all those cute plants and animals around - because biodiversity reduces the chance of sudden ecological collapse that would leave us without food
rhapsodic 10y ago
> For a rich white dude up in a 50th floor penthouse, “the future of cities” might mean zipping around in a flying car while a robot jerks you off and a drone delivers your pizza. The guy must think people of color are incapable of attaining that level of wealth. Unintentional racism, but racism all the same.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  Well, if you want to go there, it's also sexism. He said "dude". Does that mean he thinks women are also incapable of attaining that level of wealth? I think he simply wanted to rely on a common stereotype to refer to ultra-wealthy people who live completely different lives and are generally out of touch with reality.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Well, had the author said "black gal", half of the Internet would be on Twitter with pitchforks right now. I do believe that people breaking symmetry inherent in racism and sexism are creating a problem in the society. For any statement containing $race and $gender, it's either racist/sexist or it's not, regardless of the actual values of $race and $gender.
  - rhapsodic 10y ago
    > I think he simply wanted to rely on a common stereotype to refer to ultra-wealthy people who live completely different lives and are generally out of touch with reality. Well, yeah. Can you name any other race-gender combination aside from "white male" where negative stereotypes are tossed around as casually as this, by people who purport to be enlightened and fair-minded?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- iamatworknow 10y ago
schreiaj 10y ago
> To a family in Detroit, it could mean having non-toxic drinking water. Wait, did I miss when Detroit had toxic water now too?
- snrplfth 10y ago
  Well, they have Faygo.
  - fokinsean 10y ago
    whoop whoop
501startups 10y ago
Fascinating!
esyechka 10y ago
Great concept, but no mention of winter, or poor weather. Would be difficult to grocery shop or go far distances in snow or rain. Cities would have to be as compact as possible for public transport to reach everywhere, and that would be difficult to achieve in already existing cities with a lot of legacy infrastructure.
- thinkingkong 10y ago
  Or you could put on a coat.
- _jahh 10y ago
  I guess you missed the part where he talks about Copenhagen and how people bike extensively there despite the fact it certainly doesn't have what anyone would call nice weather.

58 points by Parbeyjr 10y ago

While I'm glad that this topic is getting addressed, that video was pretty difficult to watch. I know it would be unwise to spend extensive amounts of time on each topic in the video, but the way it was cut made it hard to think about the topic before moving on to the next part. Otherwise, this topic is likely what I want to focus my career in at some point, understanding how to improve the ways cities run, given how they are more and more the drivers of not only the economy, but a lot of the culture and thinking generated in the world. (As someone who grew up in global cities such as Singapore, Paris, etc., I always felt that these cities had more in common with each other than with other cities in the countries they are in.) I'm making my way through Jane Jacob's Life and Death of American Cities right now, and it has definitely changed a lot of my thinkings of how cities should be designed (more mixed-used, parks are not necessarily ideal, etc). I wonder how a company could be created to tackle the issues cities are facing these days, working with local governments (or without if need be).

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Philadelphia was the best-designed city, basically ever. Perfect grid, even spacing between residences, businesses, and parks, and you know what ended up happening? Nearly everybody piled up along the waterfronts, because that's where the action was. London, meanwhile, had never really been planned at all, and even well-intentioned planning often ended up straddling the line between disaster and farce. If you want to laugh a lot and learn about ways that London has been "developed" over the years, check out this guy's videos: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yUEHWhO_HdY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yUEHWhO_HdY
- saeranv 10y ago
  I agree in spirit with you, but we should strive not to be reductive about the role of planning in cities. Slums are also unplanned.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    I guess I wasn't clear. My point is that planning isn't perfect, and will never solve all problems. An example from my hometown of Ithaca NY: this tiny valley was never built with cars in mind, and because there is a lake to the north and steep hills in every other direction, there are only about 6 ways in and out of Ithaca. Usually this isn't a problem but certain times of day the traffic comes to a complete stop as there is no physical way to relieve the congestion. If major charges to roadways were made, it could fix some of the congestion issues, but since nearly all travel through Ithaca revolves around The Commons (literally: one-way streets move traffic counterclockwise around the popular pedestrian mall), it could have a devastating effect on local businesses. I am convinced that no single entity is capable of creating and executing a plan that improves an urban area in any more than a limited portion without significant and unforeseen consequences. Speaking of slums: the original plans for public housing projects in big cities like New York failed to account for the lack of maintenance or the effects of drugs being sold or used on the premises, which matters a lot because one prolific drug dealer can drastically reduce quality of life for everybody in the building, especially if they are smart or small-time enough to avoid police interference, thus allowing dealers to become de facto authorities in the projects. That is an example of a planned (but unexpected) slum.
    - labster 10y ago
      There might be a company to fix Ithaca's traffic, but it would be Boring.
      - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
        Boooo /s Actually the solution could come from another EM company in the form of self-driving cars, as it would alleviate congestion just enough for it to stop being a problem anymore. The traffic issue really only focuses on certain chokepoints in and out of the city. You know the deal: everybody stopped at a series of red lights. Light at the front goes green, first car moves, second car behind it has space to move, and so on. If all the cars were able to start and stop in unison based on the state of the traffic lights then the congestion problems in Ithaca would disappear overnight. We aren't big enough to need (or be able to afford) massive infrastructure projects, and as I alluded to earlier, it probably wouldn't be worth the unforeseen consequences. Not to mention the downtown retailers are still reeling from the Commons reconstruction, which put way too many of my favorite stores out of business.
- icebraining 10y ago
  I have much sympathy for the natural development over top-down design, but I have to point out that being symmetrical is not the same as being well designed. In fact, I'd say it's probably a good indication of bad city design.
adrianN 10y ago
It is my understanding that cities have been where culture, trade, and politics happen at least since the bronze age.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
- lj3 10y ago
  > My personal approach is to build up better and better datasets (simulated, some taken from open datasets like the Building Performance Database) to slowly but surely force some evidence into these discussions. You'll fail using that approach. The NIMBYs don't make their decisions based on data. They make their opinions based on emotion. If you want to change their minds you need to appeal to their emotions. Run commercials in the NIMBY neighborhood that show poor, disadvantaged low income families who would get to live there if the tower went up. Make them feel ashamed for opposing towers and they'll stop opposing them. edit: Yes, this is a bad example, but the point remains. You must hit them in the feels.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
    - snrplfth 10y ago
      And mostly, new construction is not for low-income people, just because it's new. Low-income people tend to live in older buildings that have depreciated.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        snrplfth 10y ago
        Sure, the idea at least of Section 37 is effectively "local compensation". Too often it's "councillor's goodies for constituents money", and it's not much help when the Section 37 park gets built a kilometer away from the actual development. And often the locals don't want change anyways, so Section 37 stuff is not enticing. Makes sense in theory though.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago

iammyIP 10y ago

I agree, could not watch it past 3 mins - too many editing gimmicks, looks like edutainment nonsense with many fluffy short statements and low actual information density. This video editing talent is wasted for such a topic, would be better used in a music video. Also the author really must hate music.

baron816 10y ago

"We do damage to nature...and we do less damage to nature when we occupy less of it." Edward Glaeser is the man.

1_2__3 10y ago
I have to admit this line of thinking never really resonated with me, and it resonates even less as I get older. My goal in life is not to have minimum impact on my environment, and yes, that includes nature. I think the nuance of the middle gets lost in these conversations. The right tends to think humans should have dominion over all (while ignoring the fact that we haven't "conquered" nature, and we have ample evidence of the carnage we cause when we think we have), and the left seems to take an Agent Smith view that we're a plague upon the planet and need to be contained, quarantined, and engineered until we no longer impact anything (while ignoring the fact that this flatly isn't possible, or even desirable). So no, I do not believe that "we do damage to nature", because besides it being a nonsense statement, even the kernel of truth in it is wrong-headed in my opinion.
- lg 10y ago
  everything from our pets to our lawns to our roads and farms does damage to biodiversity though, which ultimately makes all life less resilient.
  - Ericson2314 10y ago
    Yay I'm not the only one! Preserving biodiversity is oft-unstated most important goal of environmentalism. It's our meta-darwinian imperative.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Why would we care about biodiversity? There are only two reasons that come to my mind, and both IMO should be addressed directly: - because it's cool and fun to have all those cute plants and animals around - because biodiversity reduces the chance of sudden ecological collapse that would leave us without food

rhapsodic 10y ago

> For a rich white dude up in a 50th floor penthouse, “the future of cities” might mean zipping around in a flying car while a robot jerks you off and a drone delivers your pizza. The guy must think people of color are incapable of attaining that level of wealth. Unintentional racism, but racism all the same.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
enraged_camel 10y ago
Well, if you want to go there, it's also sexism. He said "dude". Does that mean he thinks women are also incapable of attaining that level of wealth? I think he simply wanted to rely on a common stereotype to refer to ultra-wealthy people who live completely different lives and are generally out of touch with reality.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Well, had the author said "black gal", half of the Internet would be on Twitter with pitchforks right now. I do believe that people breaking symmetry inherent in racism and sexism are creating a problem in the society. For any statement containing $race and $gender, it's either racist/sexist or it's not, regardless of the actual values of $race and $gender.
- rhapsodic 10y ago
  > I think he simply wanted to rely on a common stereotype to refer to ultra-wealthy people who live completely different lives and are generally out of touch with reality. Well, yeah. Can you name any other race-gender combination aside from "white male" where negative stereotypes are tossed around as casually as this, by people who purport to be enlightened and fair-minded?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
iamatworknow 10y ago

schreiaj 10y ago

> To a family in Detroit, it could mean having non-toxic drinking water. Wait, did I miss when Detroit had toxic water now too?

snrplfth 10y ago
Well, they have Faygo.
- fokinsean 10y ago
  whoop whoop

501startups 10y ago

Fascinating!

esyechka 10y ago

Great concept, but no mention of winter, or poor weather. Would be difficult to grocery shop or go far distances in snow or rain. Cities would have to be as compact as possible for public transport to reach everywhere, and that would be difficult to achieve in already existing cities with a lot of legacy infrastructure.

thinkingkong 10y ago
Or you could put on a coat.
_jahh 10y ago
I guess you missed the part where he talks about Copenhagen and how people bike extensively there despite the fact it certainly doesn't have what anyone would call nice weather.