10 ms·

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 e

by 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

by Synroc 10y ago

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