21 ms·

The elephant in the room is the assumption that _everyone wants to be stacked on top of each other_. I do agree that designing cities around cars has ruined a

The elephant in the room is the assumption that _everyone wants to be stacked on top of each other_. I do agree that designing cities around cars has ruined a lot of nice places though.

pif 6y ago
I agree with you, and I expressed the same point four years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11908567 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11908567
oblio 6y ago
They don't want to be stacked, but they do want jobs, they want Chinese/Indian/French/... restaurants, they want daycares, they want schools, they want high-schools, they want notaries, and hospitals and clinics, they want shopping malls and delis, they want pharmacies and pawn shops, ... It's almost like wanting 50000 people with different professions nearby means you have to live next to 50000 people. Until we discover teleportation.
- johnbrodie 6y ago
  I'm confused as to whether you're describing urban living or suburban living. Both have everything mentioned, the latter without being stacked on top of your neighbors.
  - oblio 6y ago
    It's in the name. You only have "sub-urban living" because there is an "urban" nearby.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      You don't have to go to the urban center for everyday things though, you go there because that's where the jobs are. When full remote becomes more wide-spread, that might change things rapidly.
      - ghaff 6y ago
        Some jobs. There are more than there used to be in some cities but most technology jobs are still in suburban campuses and industrial parks.
      - oblio 6y ago
        It's not only jobs. Do you want to watch theater? Opera? Concerts? Major sports events? Do you want to join a club for an obscure African sport? I could go on and on. There is a reason we've been congregating in cities for millennia, despite having to overcome many diseases which are made worse by overcrowdedness.
        philwelch 6y ago
        Much of that has been largely replaced with electronic media, and what remains is a “once in a while” occasion that people are willing to travel to. These days, much of the time, city-dwellers are the ones who have to travel to suburban venues. The main reasons for urbanization were always economic and political. Rome was not built for the Coliseum; the Coliseum was built for Rome.
        jschwartzi 6y ago
        There are still a lot of us who really enjoy theater, opera, concerts, shows, and the like. And those things can only be had in a city. It's true that local amphitheaters may book a few good live acts every year but that selection pales in comparison to what you can get every weekend in a reasonably-sized city. There are some fun local theater groups in my suburb too. But sometimes I really want to watch something other than Shakespeare.
        philwelch 6y ago
        That’s true. But since the mid-20th century, most people enjoy music, “dramatic productions” (for lack of a better generic term), and live sports electronically rather than in person. I know it’s not the same, and I also enjoy live entertainment and the other amenities of cities. I just don’t think these amenities are historically a prime driver for urbanization. People historically move to cities for economic reasons, providing a lucrative and competitive market for entertaining them.
  - matchbok 6y ago
    In no way do the suburbs have the quality and diversity of food that any urban core does. 0%. I've been in both, they simple do not compare.
    - vel0city 6y ago
      There's little reason why it would be impossible to have though. I live in a suburb. You'd be hard pressed to think of a type of food that I couldn't get within a 15min drive. Rotating sushi restaurant? Check. Lebanese bakery? Check. Canadian poutine? Check. Noodle restaurant - you want Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese? Which of the half dozen hot pot restaurants would you want to go to? Don't forget to pick up some borscht from the Russian restaurant. Meanwhile I go downtown and there's less choice of restaurants than the suburb I live in. Turns out you don't have to live in San Fransisco or Manhattan to have more than just a McDonalds to eat at in the US. Many suburbs elsewhere may only have Applebees as the pinnacle of culture, but that is not a given. Not every city is the same around the world. Not every suburb is the same.
      - Dahoon 6y ago
        A 10 minute walk is more realistic to compare the two. Jumping to a 15 minute drive makes it very apparent you are an American.
        vel0city 6y ago
        The question posed was if a suburb could offer the quality and depth of food choices as compared to an urban area. In 10-15 minutes of travel in the suburban area where I live I can easily choose between over one hundred different restaurant choices. Practically any kind of food I can think of, I can probably take a pick between at least a couple of choices, probably several. Is that the same in your 10 minutes of walking?
    - bluGill 6y ago
      My house has equal or better diversity of food than whatever city you live in. I cook it myself. If course my house needs to have a nice kitchen because I spend a lot of time there. Is the compromise worth it? I think so, but you may be different.
wongarsu 6y ago
As a European, I don't like living in the same house as 5 other families, whose sleep schedule doesn't necessarily align with mine. The acoustic isolation is probably a lot better than in typical US houses, but not perfect either. However I do like living 3 minutes from the next supermarket, and 20 minutes from the city center with all the shop, and 25 minutes from my work (all distances by foot). I would love to have all the advantages without any of the disadvantages, but at least around here most people prefer living closer together over commuting longer distances.
- occamrazor 6y ago
  For a reasonable price one can have _either_ a single-family house, _or_ an apartment close to the city centre in most European towns. Having both usually is possible for an exorbitant price.
  - mcguire 6y ago
    "Reasonable" by San Francisco standards, or normal human beings'?
    - ghaff 6y ago
      The Bay Area is mostly an outlier compared to most other places. (And the Bay Area is a bit unusual in that, if you're commuting, it's hard to reasonably commute out of expensive housing because the South Bay, Marin, Berkeley, are also hugely expensive not just the city. In the East Bay you can start to approach reasonable but if you're working in the South Bay, your commute won't be reasonable and access to the city for recreation may not be great either.
      - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
        Have they finished Warm Springs station already?
    - occamrazor 6y ago
      Depends on the city. With the exception of Paris, London, Geneva I’d say normal standards.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
crispyambulance 6y ago
> assumption that _everyone wants to be stacked on top of each other_ It's also an assumption that everyone wants to begin and end every trip, no matter how trivial, with a parking spot. It's an assumption that people will want to drive in traffic for 20 minutes minimum to get to a supermarket, do anything with their kids, or anything outside their property line. The notion of "stacked on top of each other" has unpleasant connotations, but there are many different ways to live in a dense city. Would you feel "stacked on top of each other" in a Parisian townhouse with a magnificent shared courtyard, 12 foot ceilings, and everything you could possibly want a short walk or subway ride away?
- ebg13 6y ago
  > in a Parisian... Having occupied a 120 square foot chambre de bonne, I agree with your sentiment but I'd say it depends on a few qualifications. Like for instance not having basically plumbed closets as a large percentage of available living spaces. Building height restrictions in the city lead to a large number of tiny (aforementioned) inaccessible (few and tiny elevators) apartments.
- maxsilver 6y ago
  > Would you feel "stacked on top of each other" in a Parisian townhouse with a magnificent shared courtyard, 12 foot ceilings, and everything you could possibly want a short walk or subway ride away? No, I wouldn't feel "stacked on top of each other" if I were a multi-millionaire in Paris. But, in the real world, your talking about putting families into 600sqft (at very best) boxes, with audible neighbors on every side of the unit, and no way to go anywhere (no parking, no meaningful transport, because 'everything we'd let you have is a short walk away') If you actually do what you've described, and give everyone their own townhouse, you've just reinvented the modern suburb. Because that's what modern suburbs look like, everyone in a townhouse, or a townhouse with some small strips of yard around it. > but there are many different ways to live in a dense city Sure, but only if you are fantastically wealthy.
  - ebg13 6y ago
    > no way to go anywhere (no parking, no meaningful transport, because 'everything we'd let you have is a short walk away') It's news to me that the Paris Bus, Tram, Metro, RER, SNCF, Velib, and the venerable scooter have all suddenly vanished.
graeme 6y ago
You can still buy seclusion and low density in Europe! But in the USA it’s your only option in new cities.
xenocyon 6y ago
I think the bigger elephant in all of our rooms is climate change. Density is by far more climate-sustainable (as well as more environmentally sustainable in other ways) than sprawl. In addition, global economic forces are creating a mass move to cities around the world anyway. So no matter what we think we want right now, we will at some point in the present or future be forced to reckon with density either pleasantly or unpleasantly. Now with that said, there are many intelligent ways to design density so that it is not unpleasant. Paying attention to green space and the natural world, space and light in general, and careful design for both function and form can make urban density a thing that is not only sustainable but emotionally/esthetically appealing. (Unfortunately this is not necessarily how density develops in cities, current incentives often instead favoring development that prioritizes flash, affluence appeal, and short-term private economic gain.)
- EricE 6y ago
  "Density is by far more climate-sustainable (as well as more environmentally sustainable in other ways) than sprawl." Care to back that up?
  - mcguire 6y ago
    Well, certainly bacteria and viruses have an easier time getting around.
    - robrenaud 6y ago
      Yeah, but there is not going to be a vaccine for global warming.
  - xenocyon 6y ago
    It is quite a well-established and uncontroversial fact; here is one article of many that discuss this: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-carbon-footprint-reveal-urban-suburban.html https://phys.org/news/2014-01-carbon-footprint-reveal-urban-...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
dfxm12 6y ago
I'm not sure if you mean this literally as in huge apartment towers, literally as in something like a duplex/garden style apartment, or figuratively as in row homes. These are all very different housing situations. Also, you'll be hard pressed to find anything that everyone wants. It's almost a tautology, so it's not really useful to make such statements without more context/clarification about...
rdiddly 6y ago
I wouldn't mind being stacked on top of my workplace which is stacked on top of my local organic grocery store. I don't need to spend more time getting around.
throw0101a 6y ago
> The elephant in the room is the assumption that _everyone wants to be stacked on top of each other_. You can have density that supports public transit and walkable retail without having to build like HK or Manhattan. This is in the middle of a Toronto neighbourhood that was build in the 1910s (use street view to poke around): * https://www.google.com/maps/place/150+Westminster+Ave,+Toronto,+ON+M6R+1N7/ https://www.google.com/maps/place/150+Westminster+Ave,+Toron... Currently these houses/land are very expensive because living 'downtown' is fashionable again, but up until the 1990s they were reasonably priced because... who would want to live downtown when you could live in the suburbs? Some smaller sized houses on the next street over: * https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+ON+M6R+1P3/ https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+O... Most have lane way garages. They're generally 3-4 bedrooms. Everyone can have a front yard, everyone can have a backyard (with an accessible garage), and no one is really "stacked" on each other.
ctdonath 6y ago
The old city was built when everyone walked everywhere. Stacked meant you didn't have to go far to get to anywhere in the city. Automobile mobility results in sprawl: many/most people don't want to be stacked if they don't have to. What many here may not realize is how incredibly wide and flat Texas is; driving another mile takes less than a minute, and there's a whole lotta miles to get you some space from neighbors.
Schiendelman 6y ago
It’s not an assumption at all. We measure desire in dollars per square foot. People are willing to pay - to bid - more dollars per square foot to live in higher density.

The elephant in the room is the assumption that _everyone wants to be stacked on top of each other_. I do agree that designing cities around cars has ruined a lot of nice places though.

pif 6y ago

I agree with you, and I expressed the same point four years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11908567 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11908567

oblio 6y ago

They don't want to be stacked, but they do want jobs, they want Chinese/Indian/French/... restaurants, they want daycares, they want schools, they want high-schools, they want notaries, and hospitals and clinics, they want shopping malls and delis, they want pharmacies and pawn shops, ... It's almost like wanting 50000 people with different professions nearby means you have to live next to 50000 people. Until we discover teleportation.

johnbrodie 6y ago
I'm confused as to whether you're describing urban living or suburban living. Both have everything mentioned, the latter without being stacked on top of your neighbors.
- oblio 6y ago
  It's in the name. You only have "sub-urban living" because there is an "urban" nearby.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    You don't have to go to the urban center for everyday things though, you go there because that's where the jobs are. When full remote becomes more wide-spread, that might change things rapidly.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      Some jobs. There are more than there used to be in some cities but most technology jobs are still in suburban campuses and industrial parks.
    - oblio 6y ago
      It's not only jobs. Do you want to watch theater? Opera? Concerts? Major sports events? Do you want to join a club for an obscure African sport? I could go on and on. There is a reason we've been congregating in cities for millennia, despite having to overcome many diseases which are made worse by overcrowdedness.
      - philwelch 6y ago
        Much of that has been largely replaced with electronic media, and what remains is a “once in a while” occasion that people are willing to travel to. These days, much of the time, city-dwellers are the ones who have to travel to suburban venues. The main reasons for urbanization were always economic and political. Rome was not built for the Coliseum; the Coliseum was built for Rome.
        jschwartzi 6y ago
        There are still a lot of us who really enjoy theater, opera, concerts, shows, and the like. And those things can only be had in a city. It's true that local amphitheaters may book a few good live acts every year but that selection pales in comparison to what you can get every weekend in a reasonably-sized city. There are some fun local theater groups in my suburb too. But sometimes I really want to watch something other than Shakespeare.
        philwelch 6y ago
        That’s true. But since the mid-20th century, most people enjoy music, “dramatic productions” (for lack of a better generic term), and live sports electronically rather than in person. I know it’s not the same, and I also enjoy live entertainment and the other amenities of cities. I just don’t think these amenities are historically a prime driver for urbanization. People historically move to cities for economic reasons, providing a lucrative and competitive market for entertaining them.
- matchbok 6y ago
  In no way do the suburbs have the quality and diversity of food that any urban core does. 0%. I've been in both, they simple do not compare.
  - vel0city 6y ago
    There's little reason why it would be impossible to have though. I live in a suburb. You'd be hard pressed to think of a type of food that I couldn't get within a 15min drive. Rotating sushi restaurant? Check. Lebanese bakery? Check. Canadian poutine? Check. Noodle restaurant - you want Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese? Which of the half dozen hot pot restaurants would you want to go to? Don't forget to pick up some borscht from the Russian restaurant. Meanwhile I go downtown and there's less choice of restaurants than the suburb I live in. Turns out you don't have to live in San Fransisco or Manhattan to have more than just a McDonalds to eat at in the US. Many suburbs elsewhere may only have Applebees as the pinnacle of culture, but that is not a given. Not every city is the same around the world. Not every suburb is the same.
    - Dahoon 6y ago
      A 10 minute walk is more realistic to compare the two. Jumping to a 15 minute drive makes it very apparent you are an American.
      - vel0city 6y ago
        The question posed was if a suburb could offer the quality and depth of food choices as compared to an urban area. In 10-15 minutes of travel in the suburban area where I live I can easily choose between over one hundred different restaurant choices. Practically any kind of food I can think of, I can probably take a pick between at least a couple of choices, probably several. Is that the same in your 10 minutes of walking?
  - bluGill 6y ago
    My house has equal or better diversity of food than whatever city you live in. I cook it myself. If course my house needs to have a nice kitchen because I spend a lot of time there. Is the compromise worth it? I think so, but you may be different.

wongarsu 6y ago

As a European, I don't like living in the same house as 5 other families, whose sleep schedule doesn't necessarily align with mine. The acoustic isolation is probably a lot better than in typical US houses, but not perfect either. However I do like living 3 minutes from the next supermarket, and 20 minutes from the city center with all the shop, and 25 minutes from my work (all distances by foot). I would love to have all the advantages without any of the disadvantages, but at least around here most people prefer living closer together over commuting longer distances.

occamrazor 6y ago
For a reasonable price one can have _either_ a single-family house, _or_ an apartment close to the city centre in most European towns. Having both usually is possible for an exorbitant price.
- mcguire 6y ago
  "Reasonable" by San Francisco standards, or normal human beings'?
  - ghaff 6y ago
    The Bay Area is mostly an outlier compared to most other places. (And the Bay Area is a bit unusual in that, if you're commuting, it's hard to reasonably commute out of expensive housing because the South Bay, Marin, Berkeley, are also hugely expensive not just the city. In the East Bay you can start to approach reasonable but if you're working in the South Bay, your commute won't be reasonable and access to the city for recreation may not be great either.
    - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
      Have they finished Warm Springs station already?
  - occamrazor 6y ago
    Depends on the city. With the exception of Paris, London, Geneva I’d say normal standards.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

crispyambulance 6y ago

> assumption that _everyone wants to be stacked on top of each other_ It's also an assumption that everyone wants to begin and end every trip, no matter how trivial, with a parking spot. It's an assumption that people will want to drive in traffic for 20 minutes minimum to get to a supermarket, do anything with their kids, or anything outside their property line. The notion of "stacked on top of each other" has unpleasant connotations, but there are many different ways to live in a dense city. Would you feel "stacked on top of each other" in a Parisian townhouse with a magnificent shared courtyard, 12 foot ceilings, and everything you could possibly want a short walk or subway ride away?

ebg13 6y ago
> in a Parisian... Having occupied a 120 square foot chambre de bonne, I agree with your sentiment but I'd say it depends on a few qualifications. Like for instance not having basically plumbed closets as a large percentage of available living spaces. Building height restrictions in the city lead to a large number of tiny (aforementioned) inaccessible (few and tiny elevators) apartments.
maxsilver 6y ago
> Would you feel "stacked on top of each other" in a Parisian townhouse with a magnificent shared courtyard, 12 foot ceilings, and everything you could possibly want a short walk or subway ride away? No, I wouldn't feel "stacked on top of each other" if I were a multi-millionaire in Paris. But, in the real world, your talking about putting families into 600sqft (at very best) boxes, with audible neighbors on every side of the unit, and no way to go anywhere (no parking, no meaningful transport, because 'everything we'd let you have is a short walk away') If you actually do what you've described, and give everyone their own townhouse, you've just reinvented the modern suburb. Because that's what modern suburbs look like, everyone in a townhouse, or a townhouse with some small strips of yard around it. > but there are many different ways to live in a dense city Sure, but only if you are fantastically wealthy.
- ebg13 6y ago
  > no way to go anywhere (no parking, no meaningful transport, because 'everything we'd let you have is a short walk away') It's news to me that the Paris Bus, Tram, Metro, RER, SNCF, Velib, and the venerable scooter have all suddenly vanished.

graeme 6y ago

You can still buy seclusion and low density in Europe! But in the USA it’s your only option in new cities.

xenocyon 6y ago

I think the bigger elephant in all of our rooms is climate change. Density is by far more climate-sustainable (as well as more environmentally sustainable in other ways) than sprawl. In addition, global economic forces are creating a mass move to cities around the world anyway. So no matter what we think we want right now, we will at some point in the present or future be forced to reckon with density either pleasantly or unpleasantly. Now with that said, there are many intelligent ways to design density so that it is not unpleasant. Paying attention to green space and the natural world, space and light in general, and careful design for both function and form can make urban density a thing that is not only sustainable but emotionally/esthetically appealing. (Unfortunately this is not necessarily how density develops in cities, current incentives often instead favoring development that prioritizes flash, affluence appeal, and short-term private economic gain.)

EricE 6y ago
"Density is by far more climate-sustainable (as well as more environmentally sustainable in other ways) than sprawl." Care to back that up?
- mcguire 6y ago
  Well, certainly bacteria and viruses have an easier time getting around.
  - robrenaud 6y ago
    Yeah, but there is not going to be a vaccine for global warming.
- xenocyon 6y ago
  It is quite a well-established and uncontroversial fact; here is one article of many that discuss this: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-carbon-footprint-reveal-urban-suburban.html https://phys.org/news/2014-01-carbon-footprint-reveal-urban-...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

dfxm12 6y ago

I'm not sure if you mean this literally as in huge apartment towers, literally as in something like a duplex/garden style apartment, or figuratively as in row homes. These are all very different housing situations. Also, you'll be hard pressed to find anything that everyone wants. It's almost a tautology, so it's not really useful to make such statements without more context/clarification about...

rdiddly 6y ago

I wouldn't mind being stacked on top of my workplace which is stacked on top of my local organic grocery store. I don't need to spend more time getting around.

throw0101a 6y ago

> The elephant in the room is the assumption that _everyone wants to be stacked on top of each other_. You can have density that supports public transit and walkable retail without having to build like HK or Manhattan. This is in the middle of a Toronto neighbourhood that was build in the 1910s (use street view to poke around): * https://www.google.com/maps/place/150+Westminster+Ave,+Toronto,+ON+M6R+1N7/ https://www.google.com/maps/place/150+Westminster+Ave,+Toron... Currently these houses/land are very expensive because living 'downtown' is fashionable again, but up until the 1990s they were reasonably priced because... who would want to live downtown when you could live in the suburbs? Some smaller sized houses on the next street over: * https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+ON+M6R+1P3/ https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+O... Most have lane way garages. They're generally 3-4 bedrooms. Everyone can have a front yard, everyone can have a backyard (with an accessible garage), and no one is really "stacked" on each other.

ctdonath 6y ago

The old city was built when everyone walked everywhere. Stacked meant you didn't have to go far to get to anywhere in the city. Automobile mobility results in sprawl: many/most people don't want to be stacked if they don't have to. What many here may not realize is how incredibly wide and flat Texas is; driving another mile takes less than a minute, and there's a whole lotta miles to get you some space from neighbors.

Schiendelman 6y ago

It’s not an assumption at all. We measure desire in dollars per square foot. People are willing to pay - to bid - more dollars per square foot to live in higher density.