Hacker News Reader

Comment by oftenwrong | Hacker News Reader

>Today, Americans have grown more cautious; when it comes to old buildings, we now have laws at our disposal that allow us to designate and preserve what we value. Yet the enactment of such laws, at such a late stage, illustrates how the Singer’s fate coincided with another milestone: an end to the idea that American industry might be trusted to build permanent things, without answering to the deeper values of law or community or tradition.

Given the state of American cities, I wouldn't say this has worked out. American cities are defined by preservation: of property values and of plentiful free parking. These laws are used to prevent change of any kind. Building a neighbourhood on par with great American neighbourhoods like Beacon Hill and SoHo is basically impossible.

View on HN

We spend so much space on parking. Our local hospitals most recent achievement is a new parking lot. More floor-space than the rest of hospital, and bigger in footprint than all the rest of the campus. Future archaeologists will probably think we were a society of sentient cars that kept people as pets.

https://youtu.be/wFaHArkYLsM

"This animated short proposes what many earthlings have long feared -- that the automobile has inherited the planet. When life on Earth is portrayed as one long, unending conga-line of cars, a crew of extra-terrestrial visitors understandably assume they are the dominant race. While humans, on the other hand, are merely parasites. An Oscar® nominee, this film serves as an entertaining case study."

That was perfect!

>Although Ford had taken great care to blend into Earth society, he had "skimped a bit on his preparatory research," and thought that the name "Ford Prefect" would be "nicely inconspicuous." Ford "had simply mistaken the dominant life form." The Ford Prefect was, in fact, a British car manufactured in the 1950s. When he first arrived on Earth, Ford was almost run over while attempting to greet a blue Ford Prefect. He was saved by Arthur and this is how the pair meet.

We will miss you Douglas Adams.

It's impractical to make 'another Beacon Hill' because Boston only has three hills. The other two are occupied by the North End and the Financial District. This problem predates the automobile and parking, e.g. the Back Bay 'is no Beacon Hill' but was developed in the 19th century as the Shawmut Peninsula was expanded by dredging.

In some ways an 'efficient market' model is helpful. The 'best' places for new neighborhoods are likely to be developed first simply because that's where the benefits of investment are most likely to be realized. Beacon Hill is Beacon Hill because there already was a North End. And the North End is not only a much better neighborhood its magic is even less reproducible than Beacon Hill's.

Following the 'efficient market' model further, there's no abundance of undeveloped natural harbors offering the geographic and historic advantages of Boston. There's no Beacon Hill (let alone North End) in Miami, but you can get a version of the Back Bay. San Francisco has several 'Beacon Hills' and 'Back Bays' but still no North End...Spanish practice was optimized for efficiency. It used the grid.

Well, there used to be four. Dorchester Heights was deconstructed in part to fill in the Back Bay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortification_of_Dorchester_He...

American cities are defined by preservation because they were largely abandoned by all but the poorest for the last several decades. Plus, without public transit and the will to build it, there's no alternative to automobiles

We've absolutely gone overboard. But certainly there's some balance that could be struck where we can keep the FEW truly unique and beautiful treasures without marking entire neighborhoods as closed to development.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com