Hacker News Reader

Comment by ejb999 | Hacker News Reader

first of all, that is not true - there are places that allow mixed usage - and it is not 'the US' that doesn't allow it - zoning is almost always a local function, i.e. state and city/town governments make these decisions.

If resident in a certain area don't allow mixed-use areas, its because the voters in those places don't want it. If the voters in 'anytown, USA' wanted a mixed use district - they would have it. Obviously it is not what most people want.

I know I don't want it, and would vote against in it my area. Who wants to buy a house in some quiet area and then have a combo 7-11/gas station popup across the street so that some huge corporation and make just a bit more money at the expense of a nice quiet residential area being destroyed?

View on HN

> If the voters in 'anytown, USA' wanted a mixed use district - they would have it. Obviously it is not what most people want.

This assumes people participate in local politics. I would amend this to, "obviously most people don't want it enough to attend town halls and learn whose business interests is blocking progress"

>>"obviously most people don't want it enough to attend town halls and learn whose business interests is blocking progress"

So you should decide what people want, not the people that live there?

People do show up at the polls when they want something, this is not what they want, so they don't show up.

You know who wants it? huge corporations that would be more than happy to destroy quiet residential areas so they can sell $6 cups of coffee and increase the value of their stock.

There is a reason why representative democracies exist: Many topics are quite complex and many citizens have their live on their mind and don't dive deep into proposals.

Also zoning is mostly relevant when an area is newly erricted. Thus regarding

> So you should decide what people want, not the people that live there?

There is nobody yet living there.

Changing that after the fact is hard. A small corner supermarket in "suburbia" isn't sustainable as residents can't easily reach it without lots of other changes (walking/cycling infrastructure, public transport, ...) and if people have to use the car anyways the mall a mile or two further south is more attractive.

> So you should decide what people want, not the people that live there?

I didnt say "I" should decide, just speaking plainly that laws are written by whoever shows up, most people have higher priorities. It's a fault in democracy from my perspective, we are not all equal in the amount of free time we have. The poor are busy with survival, the rich/leisure class gets to spend all day lobbying and campaigning. Maybe with universal basic income, politics would be more representative since more people would have time to participate.

Surely the solution to bad facilities is not "no facilities"? Growing up with shops, houses and businesses pretty mingled, it seems like a much better approach than zoning them all - you just need proper planning regulation and careful thought around what is and isn't allowed.

Few people vote, especially locally, but everyone spends money. America's most expensive neighborhoods per sqft, except for some suburbs in California, are all in mixed-use NYC neighborhoods next to transit.

Not sure why you have to jump straight to "a combo 7-11/gas station" when you're much more likely to get a nice little coffee shop\eatery.

>>when you're much more likely to get a nice little coffee shop\eatery.

Not sure why you are assuming it won't be a 7-11 or a Starbucks or a Subway or a McDonalds - because statistically, that is what you are going to get - drive thru almost any city , and that is what you have. Hoping you get some small mom-and-pop bakery is just a fantasy. Reality says you will get big well funded chain stores that most people don't want in their neighborhoods.

That's what you get in US cities who treat pedestrians as a 3rd class citizen behind cars and more cars, so again, it's due to lack of good city planning.

Walk through European cities and Asian cities and you see a nice mix of local and yes also bigger corporation shops. But you can also find in neighborhoods of some US cities such as NYC, Philadelphia, Boston, Seattle, etc.

But I also doubt most people wouldn't want a Starbucks down the street.

In a walkable neighborhood, the result may be different. For instance, NYC has a lot of local shops, enough that NY state as a whole has the lowest per-capita rate of fast food chains in the US. And I see multiple local coffee shops here for every 1 Starbucks (though Starbucks is still quite common; far more likely than a McDonald's). I think it may be related to walkability since chains are more common in NYC's more car-oriented neighborhoods.

Outside that, I still don't think you're most likely to get a McDonald's in the middle of a residential neighborhood: it'd most likely be a corner store, since that's what walkable areas are most full of. At least in NYC, it's uncommon to have fast food outside of a busy shopping street. The shops embedded in the middle of residential neighborhoods are largely corner stores and delis, and to a lesser extent cafes / bakeries and barber shops / hair salons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com