Hacker News Reader

I hate to tell you, there is a place like this near where I live (Look up The Greene). I assure you, that place is effectively an outdoor mall. I rarely go there due to traffic in and out, I really dislike walking in it (drivers in there are in a hurry to park or leave, and have little concern for pedestrians, there is no "pedestrian only" space), and if I am going to a mall anyways, I would prefer an indoor mall where I can at least not worry about getting hit by a car going from shop to shop.

It's not just the parking, its the fact that it is not pedestrian friendly at all. If they had shoved parking off to one side and made the entire area car free, that would have been a huge upgrade.

Not just effectively an outdoor mall, it's literally just an outdoor mall: The Greene's site describes it as an "open-air, mixed-use shopping center."

Isn't what you're describing a symptom of the natural and inevitable crunch into the singularity of digital indoorism?

Going outside at all is a hangover of a rapidly departing age. There's nothing out there anymore. Everything's in your home, except for food. Have it delivered, and you're solid. That just leaves commutes. Insofar as they're necessary, I agree with living in dense, hyperurban hive arcologies where everyone can walk to work/school.

Outside is gauche. It's jejune. Meanwhile, commuting's a necessary evil, and cars are one of the most dangerous and inefficient ways to do it. Update to the new meta or farm outmoded vanity betrayed by its sprawling, parking lot-shaped contradictions.

So you see developers selling their stuff based on how nice it is to be outside, and your conclusion is that people don't want to be outside?

...what? I can't figure out what you're trying to say. I tried reading it several times.

I honestly feel cranky if I have been in the house for too long. I long for a nice walk in nature, which in a city could mean a walk in the park.

I'm not sure how people can live inside all the time, it would be like that Black Mirror episode where all they do is play video games and rack up points to try and get out of it. It would be like prison.

What the original article doesn't emphasize enough is that because the project isn't close enough to the density and viability and desirability of a vibrant and dense town center, it will not evolve into to one, but rather evolve in the other direction, toward a strip mall.

They do touch on this with a few quotes:

"As a result, these places tend not to hold their value over time, and to feel very dated after a couple decades."

"these places are also liabilities from a public-finance point of view because their drive-to, drive-away nature means that huge amounts of the land must go to roads and parking, which require maintenance but generate no direct value, and no tax revenue for the local government."

The Strong Towns website likes to emphasize urbanism from a city-accountant point of view: would you like your town/city to attract people and have a rising tax-base (aka value) so that you can afford to maintain the infrastructure, rather than lose value to the point where you can't afford to maintain it, and it deteriorates and becomes even more undesirable.

This place might be attractive for a while, but if it is only superficial with ice cream shops and brewpubs, it's just another place to drive to, not live in. When they build a Walmart and Home Depot and food court 10 miles away, people will drive there for cheaper stuff. If people live close enough to walk here, it may develop a small hardware store, some clothes shopping, and maybe a thrift store. If the people who live nearby have to get into their car anyway, it will be just a destination among many, not a livable place.

I think that is the criticism of this project: it is not good enough to become what they want you to think that it is.

Strong Towns is trying to educate people about what real urbanism is all about. It doesn't serve their mission to write an article saying "Well, half a loaf is better than none." They are trying to tell America what a great and nutritious whole loaf looks, feels and smells like.

This naturally involves criticism of the many half-assed attempts to do something about the situation.

That's not them being negative meanie faces. That's them trying to set a high bar informationally so that those who would like to see real remedies have some hope of accomplishing something better than half assing it.

What is shown is not better than what you grew up in; it's the same. It's an outdoor mall, pretending to be a downtown.

The only difference is that this mall doesn't have the food court and the giant corridors; instead it's outside where the rain and bugs can get to you.

It is also near the water, which could be nice.

> It is also near the water, which could be nice.

It is also near the water, where bugs love to congregate.

Yeah, I'm sure that'll work out just fine so long as the sea level never rises. At least it's in Florida where there's never any serious storms.

Hey, at least it serves as a proof-of-concept to suburbanites that it is entirely possible to walk around outside without dying. It takes time to wean folks off of suburban malls and back into urban living: first we show them that the world is nicer than an air-conditioned mausoleum; then we show them that walking is wonderful; then we convince them to live where they can walk to work; then we all prosper!

> at least it serves as a proof-of-concept to suburbanites that it is entirely possible to walk around outside without dying.

Except for that whole "walls all the way to the sidewalk" thing. We've been getting tons of that in my town, and it's pretty much the death of walkability. It's claustrophobic and unpleasant, and people are staying away from the areas that have this in droves. The people that live there simply get in their cars are drive to somewhere nicer to do their stuff.

and you can kick out "undesirables" and control political speech.

I mean... are you dismissing the bad because there’s worse?

My takeaway is that this kind of new development looks better (“movie set”) than what you describe, but it does not meaningfully change how people use and interact with the space and with each other.

The hard part is building a living, breathing, functional and healthy community on a continent that’s been built from the ground up around cars. There are so many examples everywhere in Europe and Asia, but I can’t think of many (any?) in North America.

> There are so many examples everywhere in Europe and Asia, but I can’t think of many (any?) in North America.

Manhattan.

Pre-WWI suburbs that haven't been hollowed out by economic decay.

Manhattan has almost no middle class people with kids. At most there are some upper middle class lawyers/bankers/programmers fighting it out over a handful of decent public schools. I don’t consider that functional or healthy.

By age 45, 86% of Americans have had kids. Out of the remaining 14%, half say they wish they had kids. Just 5% say they don’t want kids—a number virtually unchanged from 1990. You can’t call an urban area functional and healthy if it can’t accommodate the medium and long term needs of 80-90% of the population.

That's because everyone wants to live there, it's unique. If a vibrant downtown existed in all NA cities it would take the pressure off Manhattan.

That's because there aren't enough Manhattans.

A similar situation plays out in cities like London - a ton of people move out to raise families; historically it's been possible for the middle class to have children and live a few zones out, but it's getting much harder for anyone without inheritance.

The problem is that there are very few cities that aren't either tiny, or endless car based sprawl.

> A similar situation plays out in cities like London - a ton of people move out to raise families; historically it's been possible for the middle class to have children and live a few zones out, but it's getting much harder for anyone without inheritance.

> The problem is that there are very few cities that aren't either tiny, or endless car based sprawl.

not to be trite, but isn't "very few cities that aren't ... tiny" sort of definitional? england only has the population for 6 greater londons, if you crammed them all together. would spreading the population across six of them bring prices down enough for everyone to have the nice flat they want? how long would that remain the case?

That’s simply not true. Manhattan is home to 1.8 million people, several hundred thousand of whom are children.

18% of Manhattan’s population is under age 18, compared to 24% nationwide.

Fewer families than a suburban area, sure, but still many, MANY families, a large fraction of Manhattan’s population.

Those kids aren’t middle class, and the situation for them is not functional or healthy. The median household income in the communities where New York County (Manhattan) public school kids live is around $40,000, half the median income of New York County as a whole. (For obvious reasons, the situation is reversed in most of the rest of the country—households with kids earn more than households without them, because they’re statistically more likely to have two earners and older heads of the household.) 75% of New York Public School kids are eligible for free or reduced price lunch. The public school system does not serve a representative cross section of the community, but people who are stuck in the city due to availability of service jobs, availability of public housing, etc. Many of whom will flee to the suburbs as soon as their economic situation improves. They’re people like some members of my family, new immigrants who lived in the city while getting established, but moved to Long Island as soon as they got their feet under them.

People have been playing up the “revival” of cities over the past two decades, but it turns out that was entirely due to college educated white people with no kids: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/where-have.... From 2000-2017, the rate of urban living for people with school-aged kids actually dropped 5%.

I went to grad school with a lot of people who went to Manhattan to get jobs in the financial industry. Almost all of them, when they had kids, moved out of the city to Connecticut or wherever. And I'm pretty sure the balance who stayed in the city after they had kids sent them to private school.

>People have been playing up the “revival” of cities over the past two decades, but it turns out that was entirely due to college educated white people with no kids

Given that cities like Boston were still losing population 20 years ago, I do sometimes wonder if the current urban living revival (to a relative handful of cities) is mostly a fad among a very specific demographic that could reverse fairly easily with a generational change.

Here in Germany a cursory search shows that the biggest cities (Berlin & Hamburg, both their own states like DC in the US) are at the bottom of the children-per-woman chart while the top spots are mostly taken by the most rural states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_states_by_ferti...

And perhaps more "incriminating" is that last spot is taken by Berlin while the first by Brandenburg, the state surrounding Berlin on all sides (and thus containing all its suburbs).

This does not match my experience living in Manhattan. I lived in a building where many of the people had children and the neighbourhood had a lot of businesses and facilities for children. While they might have been in the minority, it would be a gross exaggeration to say "Manhattan has almost no middle class people with kids".

I did not see any of my neighbours finances and doubtlessly they were above national median incomes (this is NYC and Manhattan after all). But these were not wall street brokers, they appeared as middle-class in their lifestyle as those I know in the suburbs.

In a normal population pyramid, people with kids will compromise a significant plurality of people. Nationwide, about a third of households have kids. In Manhattan, it’s half that.

Moreover, far fewer of those kids come from the middle class. 18% of kids in New York City attend private school, about double the national rate. Of the public school kids, 75% are eligible for free or reduced price lunch, double the national average. Applying some back of the envelope math, middle class households with kids comprise about 3% of Manhattan, versus 19% nationwide. That’s huge.

Sounds like you are moving the goal posts. If you said "less than average amount of middle class families per capita" then that is obvious. You said "almost no middle class people with kids" which is in my experience misleading and almost certainly false. Given the massive population of Manhattan, even if the percentages are as skewed as heavily as you believe they are, that means there is still a significant and visible population of middle class families. Certainly enough to support a large number of businesses specifically for them.

One of the surprises I had when moving to NYC was the amount of families. I didn't expect it, thinking most of the population would be young single professionals.

You’re the one moving the goal posts. We were not talking about whether the population of families was significant “enough to support a large number of businesses.” I was replying to a post that suggested New York was an example of “a living, breathing, functional and healthy” urban community. By my reckoning, middle class households with kids are underrepresented by a factor of six in Manhattan. That’s is a hugely distorted demographic statistic that suggests New York City is inhospitable to families. Yes, 3% of Manhattan households is like tens of thousands of households. But it’s a small minority. “Almost none” isn’t all that hyperbolic.

Given that 85% of people will have kids at some point, I think that disqualifies New York City from being deemed “functional” and “healthy.” If we are looking for cues as to how to design urban environments, we should be looking at places that serve the needs of normal people. New York City is not one of those places.

> You’re the one moving the goal posts.

I'm responding directly to your claim using your own words. Again you want to change the subject, which is fine.

> I think that disqualifies New York City from being deemed “functional” and “healthy.”

I made no claim for or against that point. I responded to your claim "almost no middle class families" which I believe to be false. Feel free to walk back that hyperbole if it isn't a true representation of your beliefs. If you want to make a point about how functional or healthy NYC is you should do so without making grossly exaggerated claims to support your argument.

I'm normally in line with many of your arguments rayiner, (they're usually well supported by data which I like), but in reading through this particular thread in its entirety, it does appear that you've done a little goal post moving.

Just as a matter of full disclosure, I feel that the absence of middle class families does not make an area any more unhealthy than the absence of, say, poor black families makes an area unhealthy. This is very much just a personal opinion here, but every demographic in a nation does not have to be proportionately represented in a community for that community to be "healthy".

> Just as a matter of full disclosure, I feel that the absence of middle class families does not make an area any more unhealthy than the absence of, say, poor black families makes an area unhealthy. This is very much just a personal opinion here, but every demographic in a nation does not have to be proportionately represented in a community for that community to be "healthy".

I think for a community to be healthy, it must be designed to accommodate a normal person’s life cycle. For 90% of people, that means raising kids, and, eventually, grand kids. Current and future parents aren’t just any random demographic, they’re almost everybody. They’re up there with “people who use the bathroom at work.” A place that isn’t a good place for people to raise kids is literally unsustainable, and that’s not healthy.

The absence of middle class people in New York City, and the tendency of lower income families to leave when their incomes improve, is a strong signal that it’s not a good place for non-wealthy people to raise kids. I don’t think you can call a place that fails to accommodate such a basic life function “healthy.” New York City is literally unsustainable—it would cease to exist if it weren’t for continuous international immigration. Suburbia might be ugly and car dependent, but at least it’s a place where normal people can meet all of their life needs. (Note I’m not advocating for suburbia. I’m criticizing urbanists for failing to offer any solutions that speak to the 90% of people who have or want kids. They’re selling beautiful office buildings without bathrooms.)

Check out Montreal. It has a great downtown and decent public transit. It is also very walkable about 9 months a year.

I do like Montreal... Except for the weather :)

A bit more expensive but they could add a few underground floors for parking. In cold , snowy climates this might even be an advantage.

This would waste less surface area to parking lots but would add some cost.

Except this particular development is in Florida, where you can't go under ground, and hurricane building codes make building up more complicated and expensive. As a Florida resident, I would love to see more parking garages, so parking takes up less ground surface area.

It appears likely that we are going to have to write off at least half of Florida in the next century, so any building at all seems counterproductive compared to finding better places to live.

Better write off the entire thing while it has some market value.

Going "underground" in Florida is typically prohibitively expensive, but it's possible if you're willing to fudge things a bit. Disney's Utilidoor System is a tunnel system that sits above the water table by itself being mostly at ground level, and then having the parks built a story above it. The Lagoon around Disney comes from the dirt dug up to create the effect.

I believe the concept for a underground transportation/roadway layer in the original Epcot city worked on the same idea but massively expanded, somewhat similar to a modernized/expanded Chicago Tunnel Company lines.

A photo of the Epcot "Transportation Layer" concept art can be seen here.

https://www.yesterland.com/domedcity.html

If only you knew how much I wish even some of the original Epcot city had been built in Central Florida. My life would be so much different it would be unrecognizable.

That's cool, I didn't know about the Epcot concept city. It reminds me of Louvain-la-Neuve in Belgium, a "new town" built by and for a university in the early 1970's:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louvain-la-Neuve

"the city center is built on a gigantic concrete slab, with all motorized traffic travelling underground. This allows most of the ground level of the city center to be car free. Most buildings are built on the slab (la dalle), and the pedestrian area is expanding even far from the city centre."

(I also learned about Louvain on HN last year, but I can't find the link now)

Though when you think about these layered cities really require a lot more cement, just so you can have your car in a basement. It was so much more efficient to have a dense city and a train station to go most places.

The conclusion of the article is that there needs to be less parking altogether, not just fewer surface parking lots. Livable places prioritize people, not cars.

I don’t see how you can reduce parking anywhere in the United States, unless you are also talking about building some street cars or some light rail or some train tracks.

The idea is that, if you have neighbourhoods with many things conveniently nearby, people do less "driving to places" and more "making use of neighbourhood features by walking to them."

Every one of those satisfied-demand pedestrians is one less driver out there taking up parking spots (and therefore generating demand for parking lots.)

Sure, that person might still need to own a car for some things (it's still America, some things will still be very far away); and so they'll still need somewhere near where they live to keep a car. But if they need their car for fewer of their daily-life tasks, then they can leave that car at home more. (Or get closer to a car-sharing service being viable for them; or, in a multi-adult family, get closer to downgrading from needing to own two cars, to only needing one.)

Some purpose built ski resort towns in France are like that - they have a huge warren of underground car parks and access tunnels between the buildings - e.g. Belle Plagne.

I can think of at least one of these "Movie-Set Urbanisms" with underground heated parking.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9671917,-93.3477909,3a,75y,2...

The view from the end of the street is hilarious, from the context of "2D western facades." https://www.google.com/maps/@44.96558,-93.3476714,3a,75y,294... Hopefully google never updates that picture, this comment wont make sense someday.

> There was no local "center" at all for community.

Really? Your town didn't just put a sign in front your supermarket proclaiming the area the "Town Centre"? Centre because centre implies class and sophistication while center reeks of commoners. I wonder how much the genius "consultant" ( aka politician's family member ) got for that bright idea.

I think it seems fine as well, you can still accommodate parking in a different way. Perhaps make a multi story garage, or make it underground, but not if near the coast(flooding). And if you want less parking structures maybe make more living space there, commercial on bottom and a few stories of residential on top. Overall the models look way better than 90% of the strip malls in America.