5 ms·

There are a handful of vibrant cities in the world that haven't been given over to freeways and parking, and they're so rare and desirable that they've become

There are a handful of vibrant cities in the world that haven't been given over to freeways and parking, and they're so rare and desirable that they've become luxury goods that are speculated on, like they're paintings by Vincent van Gogh. How sad is it that so far it's been impossible to simply make more nice places for people instead of for cars?

cheez 8y ago
It's not sad at all. It's what people want. If society just thought paying interest on your house was another form of feudalism and refused to play along, I expect you'd see more of your type of city and less of what we currently have.
- alephu5 8y ago
  Not just paying interest, actually paying whole mortgages for other people. Since the financial crisis of 2007 it's unrealistic for most young people to save to pay a deposit on their own mortgage. Where I live they want about 5 years of gross minimum wage just to take out a mortgage.
- closeparen 8y ago
  The difference in price tells you what people want. Dense urban environments are vastly more desired than freeway sprawl. The group participating in local politics and writing the policies that entrench freeway sprawl are not representative of housing seekers as a whole.
pascalxus 8y ago
Not just Sad but also self-imposed. If outside investors and outside countries were buying up all our jeans, cars, tvs and junk foods, we'd be celebrating it all day long. in fact, we even blame other countries for not buying enough of our stuff (balance of trade debate). And yet, when it comes to real estate we act like we can't make more of it. The vast majority of land out there is still unbuilt. Simply start another city, say 50 miles away or more if need be and then create incentives for companies to move there. We'll have more jobs, much cheaper housing, an opportunity to build a brand new city with the latest technologies, parks, outdoor gyms, libraries, etc, not to mention it'll bring housing costs down in prior city too.
- jdavis703 8y ago
  A city is so much more than the built environment. A city is also made up of its people, and expensive, purpose-built cities seem to lack that human vibrancy. I’ve been to some of the top-tier “master planned” towns, transit villages and town centers. At face value they all seem nice, walkable and urban. But they’re also generally extremely bland. They have the same chain retail and restaurant concepts, private security who will chase away anyone who seems undesirable (that is everyone from unsheltered folks, to rowdy teens, to street vendors) and they usually are not well integrated with the surrounding areas.
  - mymythisisthis 8y ago
    One of Toronto's nicest neighborhoods (High Park / Roncesvalles) was designed and built by a scam artists. Though Joseph Phillips wound up in jail for running a Ponzi scheme, he knew what people wanted; a walkable community (small blocks), mixed use residential/commercial, a large central park.
  - Bekwnn 8y ago
    A somewhat popular place in Vancouver for restaurants/night life is yaletown. It's somewhat scuzzy and expensive, but it has brick buildings I guess? Plenty of fantastic places in Vancouver with character, but I don't understand that one. (And I work there.) But I know the kind of blandness you're talking about. Richmond somehow is a metropolis that feels like a desert.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  Part of what makes cities nice is people actually living in housing. If a neighborhood is significantly underoccupied by residents it kills local businesses that need foot traffic, increases social isolation, and decreases perceived safety. In practice new planned cities work out badly, because location is everything and cities need an underlying reason to exist. Residents don’t want to move to a place with no jobs, and jobs don’t want to be in a place where it’s hard to attract workers. An interesting article on how Songdo, South Korea is failing even though its location next to the country’s biggest airport should’ve helped it: https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/06/sleepy-in-songdo-koreas-smartest-city/561374/ https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/06/sleepy-in-songdo-koreas...
api 8y ago
I have to be contrarian in spite of aesthetically preferring the classical city. Nothing about the suburbs made sense to me until I had kids. Now everything makes sense. Young kids require a lot of gear. Hauling all that without a car is hard. Walking and transit take time and kids have schedules or else you get meltdowns. Kids also get bored. Density helps transit time but kids need safe space to play and that is at a premium in dense cities. Unpacking and packing young kids into cars is painful. You have to get them in, belted, etc., which for <5yos can be an ordeal each time. Enter the drive through. I could go all day. Not saying you can't do kids in a city, just that the burbs make total sense now.
- jdavis703 8y ago
  Counter-example from the 90s: my mom operated a home daycare business. She’d take all us kids (usually 6 or 7) on the bus and we’d take a trip to the pool, or park or whatever. It’s possible to do fun things with your children without a car.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  I live in a downtown area atm specifically for my toddler. We go to the grocery store everyday, we go to the nearby park, he doesn’t mind the transit times. Ever since we changed his seat to face forward, he does love it when we actually use the car, and sometimes demands it (kai che, kai che!), but it isn’t really necessary unless we are going to the doctor or pool. We did choose downtown Bellevue rather than downtown Seattle, however, which has a huge park and not so many of the negatives of Seattle (homeless, drug needles, etc...).

cheez 8y ago

It's not sad at all. It's what people want. If society just thought paying interest on your house was another form of feudalism and refused to play along, I expect you'd see more of your type of city and less of what we currently have.

alephu5 8y ago
Not just paying interest, actually paying whole mortgages for other people. Since the financial crisis of 2007 it's unrealistic for most young people to save to pay a deposit on their own mortgage. Where I live they want about 5 years of gross minimum wage just to take out a mortgage.
closeparen 8y ago
The difference in price tells you what people want. Dense urban environments are vastly more desired than freeway sprawl. The group participating in local politics and writing the policies that entrench freeway sprawl are not representative of housing seekers as a whole.

pascalxus 8y ago

Not just Sad but also self-imposed. If outside investors and outside countries were buying up all our jeans, cars, tvs and junk foods, we'd be celebrating it all day long. in fact, we even blame other countries for not buying enough of our stuff (balance of trade debate). And yet, when it comes to real estate we act like we can't make more of it. The vast majority of land out there is still unbuilt. Simply start another city, say 50 miles away or more if need be and then create incentives for companies to move there. We'll have more jobs, much cheaper housing, an opportunity to build a brand new city with the latest technologies, parks, outdoor gyms, libraries, etc, not to mention it'll bring housing costs down in prior city too.

jdavis703 8y ago
A city is so much more than the built environment. A city is also made up of its people, and expensive, purpose-built cities seem to lack that human vibrancy. I’ve been to some of the top-tier “master planned” towns, transit villages and town centers. At face value they all seem nice, walkable and urban. But they’re also generally extremely bland. They have the same chain retail and restaurant concepts, private security who will chase away anyone who seems undesirable (that is everyone from unsheltered folks, to rowdy teens, to street vendors) and they usually are not well integrated with the surrounding areas.
- mymythisisthis 8y ago
  One of Toronto's nicest neighborhoods (High Park / Roncesvalles) was designed and built by a scam artists. Though Joseph Phillips wound up in jail for running a Ponzi scheme, he knew what people wanted; a walkable community (small blocks), mixed use residential/commercial, a large central park.
- Bekwnn 8y ago
  A somewhat popular place in Vancouver for restaurants/night life is yaletown. It's somewhat scuzzy and expensive, but it has brick buildings I guess? Plenty of fantastic places in Vancouver with character, but I don't understand that one. (And I work there.) But I know the kind of blandness you're talking about. Richmond somehow is a metropolis that feels like a desert.
bobthepanda 8y ago
Part of what makes cities nice is people actually living in housing. If a neighborhood is significantly underoccupied by residents it kills local businesses that need foot traffic, increases social isolation, and decreases perceived safety. In practice new planned cities work out badly, because location is everything and cities need an underlying reason to exist. Residents don’t want to move to a place with no jobs, and jobs don’t want to be in a place where it’s hard to attract workers. An interesting article on how Songdo, South Korea is failing even though its location next to the country’s biggest airport should’ve helped it: https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/06/sleepy-in-songdo-koreas-smartest-city/561374/ https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/06/sleepy-in-songdo-koreas...

api 8y ago

I have to be contrarian in spite of aesthetically preferring the classical city. Nothing about the suburbs made sense to me until I had kids. Now everything makes sense. Young kids require a lot of gear. Hauling all that without a car is hard. Walking and transit take time and kids have schedules or else you get meltdowns. Kids also get bored. Density helps transit time but kids need safe space to play and that is at a premium in dense cities. Unpacking and packing young kids into cars is painful. You have to get them in, belted, etc., which for <5yos can be an ordeal each time. Enter the drive through. I could go all day. Not saying you can't do kids in a city, just that the burbs make total sense now.

jdavis703 8y ago
Counter-example from the 90s: my mom operated a home daycare business. She’d take all us kids (usually 6 or 7) on the bus and we’d take a trip to the pool, or park or whatever. It’s possible to do fun things with your children without a car.
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
I live in a downtown area atm specifically for my toddler. We go to the grocery store everyday, we go to the nearby park, he doesn’t mind the transit times. Ever since we changed his seat to face forward, he does love it when we actually use the car, and sometimes demands it (kai che, kai che!), but it isn’t really necessary unless we are going to the doctor or pool. We did choose downtown Bellevue rather than downtown Seattle, however, which has a huge park and not so many of the negatives of Seattle (homeless, drug needles, etc...).