4 ms·

I bet the OP has traveled to only a few cities. New Orleans gets it right. NYC definitely doesn't, and it's a no-brainer why, it's crowded as heck.

MichaelGG 13y ago
The author explicitly mentioned enjoying a site in New Orleans.
- jamesbritt 13y ago
  And in New York.
- selimthegrim 13y ago
  I would give Delachaise (New Orleans) props as somewhere that tries and mostly succeeds at this vibe. They are a bit more sealed off from the street than I'd like, though.
sssilver 13y ago
East/West village in NY are fine.
traughber 13y ago
Actually, I think areas with more density are actually better for achieving what the author describes.
- Turing_Machine 13y ago
  I would say more density would be mandatory. That can't happen without massive (and forcible) population relocation. For example, the UK has a smaller land area than Oregon, but has ~64 million people, compared to ~4 million for Oregon. France is smaller than Texas, but has 66 million people compared to ~26 million for Texas. The idea of "just getting rid of cars" will never happen for a similar reason. The U.S. is too big and there are way too many people who live outside the range of any reasonable public transit system that's been devised so far. Maybe it will happen someday, but I don't think so.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    Vishaan Chakrabarti actually specifically defines a city as "30 dwelling units per acre" or "population dense enough to support train-based transit". Latter is paraphrased.
    - Turing_Machine 13y ago
      Hmm... I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a definition of city that excludes (e.g.) Los Angeles and Dallas-Fort Worth. Reading what I wrote above in the light of day makes it sound like I'm advocating forcible population redistribution. I'm not... just pointing out that a European-style urban environment probably can't happen in the low densities typical of the United States, and that the only way to achieve such densities here would probably require force (which would be a bad thing, IMO).
      - saraid216 13y ago
        I haven't finished reading his book, so I can't speak to the context in which he says this. I guess it depends on what you consider force. If you stop encouraging suburb development, would that be force? It would certainly promote such redistribution, but I wouldn't consider that force. As another HN link noticed, this kind of financial incentive to move into the city has already started happening, but it has been a bottom-up bit.
        Turing_Machine 13y ago
        IMO, removing subsidies wouldn't be force, but raising taxes would.
bchallenor 13y ago
Paris (55,000/sq mi) is twice as dense as New York City (27,778.7/sq mi) (numbers from Wikipedia). It's one of the densest cities in the Western world. Edit: though I suppose if you consider Manhattan to be "New York" then that is more dense (70,825.6/sq mi) than Paris.

MichaelGG 13y ago

The author explicitly mentioned enjoying a site in New Orleans.

jamesbritt 13y ago
And in New York.
selimthegrim 13y ago
I would give Delachaise (New Orleans) props as somewhere that tries and mostly succeeds at this vibe. They are a bit more sealed off from the street than I'd like, though.

sssilver 13y ago

East/West village in NY are fine.

traughber 13y ago

Actually, I think areas with more density are actually better for achieving what the author describes.

Turing_Machine 13y ago
I would say more density would be mandatory. That can't happen without massive (and forcible) population relocation. For example, the UK has a smaller land area than Oregon, but has ~64 million people, compared to ~4 million for Oregon. France is smaller than Texas, but has 66 million people compared to ~26 million for Texas. The idea of "just getting rid of cars" will never happen for a similar reason. The U.S. is too big and there are way too many people who live outside the range of any reasonable public transit system that's been devised so far. Maybe it will happen someday, but I don't think so.
- saraid216 13y ago
  Vishaan Chakrabarti actually specifically defines a city as "30 dwelling units per acre" or "population dense enough to support train-based transit". Latter is paraphrased.
  - Turing_Machine 13y ago
    Hmm... I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a definition of city that excludes (e.g.) Los Angeles and Dallas-Fort Worth. Reading what I wrote above in the light of day makes it sound like I'm advocating forcible population redistribution. I'm not... just pointing out that a European-style urban environment probably can't happen in the low densities typical of the United States, and that the only way to achieve such densities here would probably require force (which would be a bad thing, IMO).
    - saraid216 13y ago
      I haven't finished reading his book, so I can't speak to the context in which he says this. I guess it depends on what you consider force. If you stop encouraging suburb development, would that be force? It would certainly promote such redistribution, but I wouldn't consider that force. As another HN link noticed, this kind of financial incentive to move into the city has already started happening, but it has been a bottom-up bit.
      - Turing_Machine 13y ago
        IMO, removing subsidies wouldn't be force, but raising taxes would.

bchallenor 13y ago

Paris (55,000/sq mi) is twice as dense as New York City (27,778.7/sq mi) (numbers from Wikipedia). It's one of the densest cities in the Western world. Edit: though I suppose if you consider Manhattan to be "New York" then that is more dense (70,825.6/sq mi) than Paris.