4 ms·
There are plenty of cities you can afford. It's just that if you want walkable and world class network effects, eventually the demand will drive us prices so th
by Noos 7y ago
There are plenty of cities you can afford. It's just that if you want walkable and world class network effects, eventually the demand will drive us prices so that only the wealthy can afford to live there.
- burlesona 7y agoI don't think that "walkable" and "world-class network effects" are actually required to go together. The majority of walkable places around the world are just ordinary towns you've never heard of. In North America this tends to be true mostly because just about everything was walkable before WW2, and after WW2 the almost the only places that were left that way were the places too wealthy and expensive to demolish and rebuild around the car. Not too much of a surprise, the places that had that much wealth 70 years ago are still the major hubs of the economy today.
- Noos 7y agoIf it were just walkable, you could pick a smaller city or downtown area and live there, especially with a class that does intellectual or remote work. The issue of "too expensive" is usually that everyone wants to crowd into a few cities because of those network effects and social life features, walkability is one of them. For all the love of decentralization HN has, in practice they very much want to centralize where wealth and power is.
- ghaff 7y agoWhen most people say "walkable," what they generally really mean is walkable + good transit + tons of places they'd actually want to walk to like parks, bars, restaurants, and shops.
- Redoubts 7y ago> If it were just walkable, you could pick a smaller city or downtown area and live there No you couldn't, because most American downtowns completely close down outside of 9-5 M-F.
- nerfhammer 7y agoHistorically that hasn't been true, has it? It's only been true since we decided to stop building housing or transport infrastructure in cities
- projektfu 7y agoThe suburban development plan becomes really onerous when cities sprawled once and then sprawled again a couple more times. The first round of widely-spaced single-family homes with no retail or commercial space causes a buffer that can't be expanded into by the inner metro without a herculean effort or complete failure of the neighborhood. The second ring usually becomes poor because the third ring is where the wealthy are moving into the big houses. That third ring looks great, now, but eventually it will look run down as well and will either be abandoned or will need a ton of money to replace it. The post-war American development plan is what it is. Nevertheless, we need to strategize to continue developing our cities into places that are worth living in. I think Atlanta has been doing a good job, but it bumps against these zoning constraints a lot. With more people understanding the overall strategy, and with some projects like the BeltLine showing how desirable new approaches can be, we will hopefully see substantial improvement in our lifetime. And by that, I mean that people will really appreciate where they live, and have healthier and happier lives, not that it meets some goal of urbanization or what not.