5 ms·

Lol America. Where walkable streets are justified by economics and not humanities.

buswell 9y ago
Exactly! It makes me laugh in the article that they have to point out the sidewalks and say that "most" of the pictures happen. Only in the US does this happen. Such a weird, unhealthy, wasteful, polluting country. So happy to not be from there.
donatj 9y ago
Everything is economics, brother. Even humanities.
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  Not even close.
  - Bluestrike2 9y ago
    Depends on how you define economics. It's the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, which absolutely includes common goods like green space, pedestrian access, and other factors that are becoming even more important parts of city planning. Even if you look at some of these elements as purely aesthetic or quality of life factors, that's still something economists regularly analyze, even when it might not have traditionally been the case.
- walterstucco 9y ago
  Nope
- jdtang13 9y ago
  Everything is humanities, even economics.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Everything is humanities, even economics. Everything started out in the humanities. It's sort of like a primal trunk or root. I think philosophy, history, and art still have a lot to tell us about the human condition. I think some of the key questions to be asked are still waiting to be asked. However, I do think that science will deliver the final answers. (Giving more fodder for additional questions.)
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Everything is economics, brother. Even humanities. No. The human being is more like an oligarchy or a board. (Or, as one of Carrie Fisher's characters put it, a "committee.") Economics is something like a 30% shareholder. Philosophy, culture, and mental models are something like 40% -- there is no absolute majority shareholder, but culture has a plurality. Economics can gang up with the base instincts to overwhelm philosophy/ideology/culture, but economics just by itself would be overpowered by philosophy/ideology/culture. The situation here in SF is a great example of this. Ideology causes SF to pass laws and have regulations which work to SF's economic detriment.
- harrumph 9y ago
  >Everything is economics, brother. Even humanities. Not even this pithy, wrong, six-word statement avoids its grounding in the humanities. Consider the baseless gender assignment you made: pure humanities.
  - donatj 9y ago
    > Consider the baseless gender assignment you made: pure humanities That was absolutely economics on my part. Not the most PC, but I took a chance. A disproportionately high number of HN users identify as male. I also noted the users name was Roy, which I'd gander is also disproportionately highly male identifying. The two combine to create a likelihood I'd bet the house on.
    - harrumph 9y ago
      >That was absolutely economics on my part. The content of your explanation after the fact does use quantification, but the personalization you originally wrote is pure humanities. Further, the story you've told about what care went into your six-word comment: also pure humanities. And let's not overlook the other humanities-based flaw in your six allegedly deeply considered words: if "everything is economics" then why is economics the study of the world using models? By their definition, models fail at being "everything" they model.
- roymckenzie 9y ago
  Lol
emodendroket 9y ago
A lot of people enjoy their quiet suburban neighborhoods and don't have any particular desire to live in a dense city so to convince them these guys need to start talking about dire economic consequences.
- davidw 9y ago
  And also to demonstrate that the urban environment is directly subsidizing the suburban neighborhoods. If you ever get the chance to see a talk by Joe Minicozzi from Urban3, I highly recommend it. He covers this in detail, and his work has been used in a number of Strong Towns posts, like this one: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason...
  - scythe 9y ago
    >The median house in Lafayette costs roughly $150,000. A family living in this house would currently pay about $1,500 per year in taxes to the local government of which 10%, approximately $150, goes to maintenance of infrastructure (more is paid to the schools and regional government). A fraction of that $150 – it varies by year – is spent on actual pavement. >To maintain just the roads and drainage systems that have already been built, the family in that median house would need to have their taxes increase by $3,300 per year. That assumes no new roads are built and existing roadways are not widened or substantively improved. That is $3,300 in additional local taxes just to tread water. I've seen these figures before, and they don't make sense. It looks like he gets that $3300 figure by assuming that payments on infrastructure will double and infrastructure will remain at 10% of the city budget. But the more reasonable assumption is that payments on infrastructure will increase to become a larger proportion of the city budget -- particularly when we're talking about, say, sewers, which won't generate additional demand for policing or schools (or at least won't double it). If his claims were accurate, no suburbs so defined could have been built in the first place. At the very least it's annoying that he doesn't show more of his work, which is easy to blame on the fact that he obviously wants to destroy our way of life.
    - 9y ago
Retra 9y ago
Yes, the argument this article makes is the only reason we have such streets. It's a good thing this article was written 200 years ago so we can benefit from its wholly economic insights today.
rayiner 9y ago
Economics is to urban planning like structural mechanics is to architecture. It's a way of describing a justification ("we need a beam to hold up the floor, and the math shows why") not a justification in and of itself. It's also a way of bridging differences in subjective preferences "whether we have a post or a cantilever, we need to hold up this awning, and the math shows why"). Most Americans don't live in cities. To a degree that stands in stark contrast to Europe. Over 60% of the population of Germany's capital lives in the city proper. Just 11% of the population of America's capital lives in the city proper. To Americans, quite reasonably, pedestrians are just in the way of the offices and businesses they need to drive to. Economics helps explain in concrete terms why they might prefer to support policies that on their face seem to be against their interest.
- tptacek 9y ago
  When you say "don't live in cities", you mean "live outside of city centers", right? Because the overwhelming majority of Americans live in major metro areas.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Not just outside the city center, but outside the legal limits of the cities at the center of those metro areas.
- pcwalton 9y ago
  > To a degree that stands in stark contrast to Europe. Over 60% of the population of Germany's capital lives in the city proper. Just 11% of the population of America's capital lives in the city proper. Eh, D.C. is an outlier due to its special legal/territorial status. And the numbers are uneven in Europe as well. In Los Angeles, 3,976,322/13,131,431 (30.3%) of the population of the metro area lives in L.A. proper. Compare to Paris, where only 2,206,488/12,405,426 (17.8%) of the population of the metro area lives in Paris proper.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Out of the 10 largest U.S. cities, only San Antonio has a majority of the population of its metro area. Most aren't even close, at 20-30%. Out of the 10 largest EU cities, only three have less than half the population in the core city: Madrid, Paris, and Hamburg. And Madrid is close to the line--48%.

Exactly! It makes me laugh in the article that they have to point out the sidewalks and say that "most" of the pictures happen. Only in the US does this happen. Such a weird, unhealthy, wasteful, polluting country. So happy to not be from there.

donatj 9y ago

Everything is economics, brother. Even humanities.

eeZah7Ux 9y ago
Not even close.
- Bluestrike2 9y ago
  Depends on how you define economics. It's the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, which absolutely includes common goods like green space, pedestrian access, and other factors that are becoming even more important parts of city planning. Even if you look at some of these elements as purely aesthetic or quality of life factors, that's still something economists regularly analyze, even when it might not have traditionally been the case.
walterstucco 9y ago
Nope
jdtang13 9y ago
Everything is humanities, even economics.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Everything is humanities, even economics. Everything started out in the humanities. It's sort of like a primal trunk or root. I think philosophy, history, and art still have a lot to tell us about the human condition. I think some of the key questions to be asked are still waiting to be asked. However, I do think that science will deliver the final answers. (Giving more fodder for additional questions.)
stcredzero 9y ago
Everything is economics, brother. Even humanities. No. The human being is more like an oligarchy or a board. (Or, as one of Carrie Fisher's characters put it, a "committee.") Economics is something like a 30% shareholder. Philosophy, culture, and mental models are something like 40% -- there is no absolute majority shareholder, but culture has a plurality. Economics can gang up with the base instincts to overwhelm philosophy/ideology/culture, but economics just by itself would be overpowered by philosophy/ideology/culture. The situation here in SF is a great example of this. Ideology causes SF to pass laws and have regulations which work to SF's economic detriment.
harrumph 9y ago
>Everything is economics, brother. Even humanities. Not even this pithy, wrong, six-word statement avoids its grounding in the humanities. Consider the baseless gender assignment you made: pure humanities.
- donatj 9y ago
  > Consider the baseless gender assignment you made: pure humanities That was absolutely economics on my part. Not the most PC, but I took a chance. A disproportionately high number of HN users identify as male. I also noted the users name was Roy, which I'd gander is also disproportionately highly male identifying. The two combine to create a likelihood I'd bet the house on.
  - harrumph 9y ago
    >That was absolutely economics on my part. The content of your explanation after the fact does use quantification, but the personalization you originally wrote is pure humanities. Further, the story you've told about what care went into your six-word comment: also pure humanities. And let's not overlook the other humanities-based flaw in your six allegedly deeply considered words: if "everything is economics" then why is economics the study of the world using models? By their definition, models fail at being "everything" they model.
roymckenzie 9y ago
Lol

emodendroket 9y ago

A lot of people enjoy their quiet suburban neighborhoods and don't have any particular desire to live in a dense city so to convince them these guys need to start talking about dire economic consequences.

davidw 9y ago
And also to demonstrate that the urban environment is directly subsidizing the suburban neighborhoods. If you ever get the chance to see a talk by Joe Minicozzi from Urban3, I highly recommend it. He covers this in detail, and his work has been used in a number of Strong Towns posts, like this one: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason...
- scythe 9y ago
  >The median house in Lafayette costs roughly $150,000. A family living in this house would currently pay about $1,500 per year in taxes to the local government of which 10%, approximately $150, goes to maintenance of infrastructure (more is paid to the schools and regional government). A fraction of that $150 – it varies by year – is spent on actual pavement. >To maintain just the roads and drainage systems that have already been built, the family in that median house would need to have their taxes increase by $3,300 per year. That assumes no new roads are built and existing roadways are not widened or substantively improved. That is $3,300 in additional local taxes just to tread water. I've seen these figures before, and they don't make sense. It looks like he gets that $3300 figure by assuming that payments on infrastructure will double and infrastructure will remain at 10% of the city budget. But the more reasonable assumption is that payments on infrastructure will increase to become a larger proportion of the city budget -- particularly when we're talking about, say, sewers, which won't generate additional demand for policing or schools (or at least won't double it). If his claims were accurate, no suburbs so defined could have been built in the first place. At the very least it's annoying that he doesn't show more of his work, which is easy to blame on the fact that he obviously wants to destroy our way of life.
  - 9y ago

Retra 9y ago

Yes, the argument this article makes is the only reason we have such streets. It's a good thing this article was written 200 years ago so we can benefit from its wholly economic insights today.

rayiner 9y ago

Economics is to urban planning like structural mechanics is to architecture. It's a way of describing a justification ("we need a beam to hold up the floor, and the math shows why") not a justification in and of itself. It's also a way of bridging differences in subjective preferences "whether we have a post or a cantilever, we need to hold up this awning, and the math shows why"). Most Americans don't live in cities. To a degree that stands in stark contrast to Europe. Over 60% of the population of Germany's capital lives in the city proper. Just 11% of the population of America's capital lives in the city proper. To Americans, quite reasonably, pedestrians are just in the way of the offices and businesses they need to drive to. Economics helps explain in concrete terms why they might prefer to support policies that on their face seem to be against their interest.

tptacek 9y ago
When you say "don't live in cities", you mean "live outside of city centers", right? Because the overwhelming majority of Americans live in major metro areas.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Not just outside the city center, but outside the legal limits of the cities at the center of those metro areas.
pcwalton 9y ago
> To a degree that stands in stark contrast to Europe. Over 60% of the population of Germany's capital lives in the city proper. Just 11% of the population of America's capital lives in the city proper. Eh, D.C. is an outlier due to its special legal/territorial status. And the numbers are uneven in Europe as well. In Los Angeles, 3,976,322/13,131,431 (30.3%) of the population of the metro area lives in L.A. proper. Compare to Paris, where only 2,206,488/12,405,426 (17.8%) of the population of the metro area lives in Paris proper.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Out of the 10 largest U.S. cities, only San Antonio has a majority of the population of its metro area. Most aren't even close, at 20-30%. Out of the 10 largest EU cities, only three have less than half the population in the core city: Madrid, Paris, and Hamburg. And Madrid is close to the line--48%.