Hacker News Reader

Here is an interesting thought: in UX design and when building a startup we are encouraged to interact with users to learn what they want and need, then we craft the experience and values around that. Does this ever happen in civic planning? Do city planners ever talk to the public, to design experts, to community leaders? I honestly don't know, but I suspect the answer is NO.

When I moved to Japan it was sort of strange to see residences and businesses in the same building. The longer I live here the clearer it becomes that zoning laws have a lot to do with good civic planning. Of course there are side effects to open zoning, communities don't always look as beautiful (but I think the blame also falls on planners / lack of community effort), but overall loose restrictions allow for more useful places. When I lived in Irvine, CA, I had to drive everywhere to do anything. The sad thing is many people choose communities like Irvine precisely because it is structured this way (I did initially). In truth, you can visually tell how depressed everyone is and how hard they try to make themselves feel better. Despite the average income being below 100k for couples, people are driving 50-130k cars, living in places they can barely afford all for the sake of image. I would argue that the image issue stems in large part from loneliness and a feeling of isolation.

In all, I agree that perhaps the issue is not any one factor, but all of them combined. Rise of technology, fall of communities, poor civic planning, increasing income disparity are just the tip of the iceberg.

Yes, planners talk to the general public. You can talk to them at your planning commission if you want by going up to them and well taking to them...

Additionally if you raise a good point during public comment a planning commissioner might even ask the planner to provide a response.

Also locally I know a lot of planners are pretty active on Twitter, so you can talk with them that ways.

Lastly a lot of bad planning is driven by politics (the planners are just staff who have to implement what the mayor and/or council says to do). If you want to change bad urban planning change your city’s politics.

Isn't there a world of difference between UX designers going out to talk to the users themselves as opposed to waiting for the users to come to talk to them? It implies that there's a pretty strong self-selection bias.

Yes. But how do you propose a city planner selects the right people to talk to about urban planning?

The "users" (citizens) would first need to educate themselves on what's being proposed and what impacts it might have. They also might not be representative of the demographic actually being most affected. Maybe they just don't care.

By leaving it to citizens to self-select, you get the people who are motivated and at least marginally more educated on the issue than some random Joe off the street.

I don't see how these same points wouldn't apply to uses of software though. Most users don't know anything about software or good UX design. You also run the risk of surveying a demographic that's not the most impacted by the change. The problems seem to be identical here.

For bigger overhauls they do send people out for community outreach. For example in Oakland, CA they’re rolling out a three year paving plan and bike plan. This involved reaching out to community organizations that deal with underserved groups, setting up booths at various popular events and sending out email and social communications, articles in the local newspapers and informal surveys. That said Oakland has “equity” as a key city-wide goal so they may do more reaching out than many cities.

But why not also talk to a random selection of people in the city? Go door to door in a random selection that was done beforehand. Maybe you'll figure out what the community as a whole has trouble with or cares more about.

As someone who does a lot of political canvassing this isn’t a good use of the city’s resources. From personal experience I’d estimate that less than 5% of residents open their doors. Of the amount that do open maybe about half just want to tell you not to solicit. Further it’s almost impossible to canvass most apartment buildings that have access control.

Does this ever happen in civic planning? Do city planners ever talk to the public, to design experts, to community leaders? I honestly don't know, but I suspect the answer is NO.

They absolutely do, but the problem is that the "user base" is huge and there is never anything even close to a consensus about the 'right' thing to do among those groups.

I thought reason for this is that Japanese are more homogenous than Americans, so it's much easier for them to sympathize with their own.

Third place experiments have a tendency to turn into impromptu homeless shelters.

Im' not saying we don't need shelters, but Pete and Bob from accounting are not like to chill out at one.

> Im' not saying we don't need shelters, but Pete and Bob from accounting are not like to chill out at one.

Yeah, let's flip that. In this situation, Pete and Bob are self-isolating because they belong to a different societal caste than "third place people." It's sad. Pete and Bob are lonely, and very close to friendless -- but homeless people are forced into a community where they end up finding friends and support structures that Pete and Bob can't even imagine. But if Pete and Bob enter a third place, they'll probably shun, and be shunned by, the folks who frequent that place. All of society is harmed by our lack of altruism. Homelessness is everybody's problem.

addressing the root causes of homelessness would probably make sense. This is part of the fundamental mismanagement of america...

"It is my perception that, at least in America and I suspect in many other places, competition pressure centered around places with strong "second place" (Job) opportunities combined with decades of civic mal-planning and treating symptoms (for some) rather than root causes (for all) have combined with a regressive tax/compensation structures to destroy the middle class and upward mobility. "

i literally cannot parse this sentence. i tried - i am a native english speaker but it's just confusing to me what the proposition being made here is. i tried reading it a few times.

it is late but if someone could clarify it would be much appreciated.

I am not a native speaker and not an author, but from my understanding, they mean that we focus on jobs, not on communities (as society), and then try to patch it later (e.g. go to specific clubs, gather in some places, etc). Moreover, it is hard to jump between social classes, therefore hard to change place of living/your surroundings.

So, in a nutshell, making our lives around job makes it hard (for majority) to live a fulfilling life outside of your job.

First place is home, second place is work, third place is communal areas - sometimes the media is referred to as a fourth place.

He's saying that homes are built/valued almost entirely with access to jobs in mind and not communal spaces, and that this has not been helped by zoning laws that enforce this problem, nor by a lack of political will to tackle either this issue or any other deep-seated causes of the problem - things like housing costs for instance, which is part of a wider issue of increasing wealth disparity across the US.

Or perhaps more succinctly, the problem is a focus on fixing the surface problems of an increasingly well-off minority, instead of trying to tackle the underlying structural problems so as to benefit everybody.

Maybe according to OPs perception, the reasons destroying the middle class and upward mobility are a combination of: competition pressure centered around places with strong "second place" (Job) opportunities, decades of civic mal-planning, treating symptoms (for some) rather than root causes (for all) and regressive tax/compensation structures

But I am not sure what that actually means. And I am not a native speaker.

> in America and I suspect in many other places, competition pressure centered around places with strong "second place" (Job) opportunities combined with decades of civic mal-planning and treating symptoms (for some) rather than root causes (for all) have combined with a regressive tax/compensation structures to destroy the middle class and upward mobility.

I suspect this is almost exclusively an american issue. There is a big societal focus on "getting ahead", "keeping up with the Joneses" etc. in the US that just doesn't exist in most other countries.

I'm reminded of this poignant song by Peter Gabriel & Kate Bush: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiCRZLr9oRw

There's a world to be discovered... Only takes the will to do so really...