Hacker News Reader

Comment by resoluteteeth | Hacker News Reader

There are a bunch of different factors:

- Wages are high, so labor for construction is very expensive (not unique to the US)

- It's difficult to acquire property to build new stuff in existing cities compared to building in new places.

- It is also incredibly slow/expensive to build subways if you try to prioritize minimizing inconvenience to nearby residents above all else (cut-and-cover is MUCH faster/cheaper than tunneling).

- The US is also not very interested in trying to learn from what construction techniques, etc. have worked for public transit in other countries

Aside from the first point, a lot of this comes down to the fact that even in places in the US that have decent public transit, transit is treated more as a toy that is nice to have than a serious priority by the government, and it is only built when it doesn't cause any inconvenience to residents/drivers/etc.

The US has historically been willing to demolish low income areas and force people to move in order to build highways, however.

View on HN

I totally agree, though I think these primarily stem from one thing, which is that America hasn't been seriously tested for a very long time. When you're not challenged, you can easily settle into what is adequate, even if you support progress and innovation on paper. America is a great place to live despite its faults, but it's also stuck in the past. Take for instance our major cities; somehow much older cities around the world ironically have more modern elements than cities like Los Angeles and New York, which for all intents and purposes aren't significantly different from where they were in the 1970s (besides greater population and in the case of LA much less smog).

If we want to build quickly and actually begin to address problems rather than just accept things as the way they are, we need to be knocked down a peg. I don't think that means getting nuked or whatever, but it would mean that our "too big to fail" status would need to actually be jeopardized in a meaningful way. Once the current generation of grey-hairs in government finally croak and pass on the torch, then there would be the chance to garbage-collect excessive regulations and better pick and choose what should be regulated heavily or not, rather than regulate with a broad brush. Laws and regulations should be designed with exceptions in mind, and not just for fat cats in the club.

> somehow much older cities around the world ironically have more modern elements than cities like Los Angeles and New York

Somehow? Shouldn’t this say “Much older cities around the world have more modern elements than cities like Los Angeles and New York because they were razed to the ground during the world wars and rebuilt in modern times.”?

Nah, Thameslink beats any US line and it’s from 1988. Lizzie line will be better too.

Oedo line too. And Fukutoshin like.

Blackfriars is over the Thames. I don’t think there’s a US station that is as creative in use of space.

Not to speak of the overground or DLR.

I think it’s just trade offs. The US gives individual power, those other places give state power. Former excels in certain places but provides veto when you achieve steady state. So things stall here.

Notice that in things which can be done with individual power, like developers making housing developments in Texas, outcomes are good.

I think power to execute is definitely a big part of it. A neighborhood can't afford a major work, or organize one, so it won't, but when a government entity can afford a major work, the neighborhood often has the power to stop that. Even though the major work is likely part of a larger orchestration of infrastructure, that one neighborhood can put a halt to it.

They tried to replace a level crossing with an overpass in my city, arguably good for everyone. Well, they did argue it, and it didn't happen. Even though there is already a train line there, apparently an overpass was too much infrastructure for them.

That wouldn't explain why Phoenix and Seattle and Austin and Las Vegas (and other recent-growth cities) lack the amenities of similarly-sized European cities.

For discussion's sake, can you enumerate the amenities you're alluding to?

If it's solely in regards to public transit, I think this is largely due to cultural differences. The US still has the remnants of an individualistic frontier mentality. I don't know, but tend to think it's not by coincidence, that the better public transit systems tend to be near the eastern seaboard.

It’s not just public transit. Walkability. Bike paths. High density - potentially mixed use types. No emphasis on lowering noise. Etc.

Basically anything you’d normally see in a Not Just Bikes video…

It’s not cultural btw. It’s corporational. It’s corporations which are driving these things - which don’t seem to have as significant of a voice in other countries.

Certainly corporations drive some of it. But I do think there's also a cultural element. I've lived all across the US and the places that lack those amenities simply don't want them from my experience. Even when they do get implemented by well-wishing civil servants, they are often openly mocked as a waste of money.

I wonder - do you think that people always loved cooking with gas as much as they do now?

https://youtu.be/hX2aZUav-54

A lot of “cultural” things are corporations at work. This is a very small example…

Do you think social media influencers are what drives the selection of gas stoves? That...is a very new take I've never heard.

Most people prefer gas stoves because they are better for cooking than electric. They are generally considered better for cooking because they burn hotter than electric. It's been a long time since I've worked in food service, but I can't remember a single kitchen using electric stoves to good with and for good reason. This was when gas was much more expensive than it is now and I doubt the natural gas lobby has much influence on those choices.

The thing is - induction is shown to be better now. It’s faster and more powerful and doesn’t create the waste heat. There are specialty ones for woks now too - that are curved and all.

So really it is the gas lobby that is fueling this resistance to the switch. I myself used to buy into the cooking with gas was better because of all the media, my partner, and so forth. But the truth is - cooking with gas sucks for the most part. The newer induction ranges with temperature sensors and what not are actually better. And no waste heat and no toxic fumes except for what you’re cooking.

Honestly - I’m a big convert. I just need to move into a non-rental so I can install 230v induction instead of having to use 120v stuff. (Which is still good but obviously 5000w is much better than 1800w)

And if we compare shit electric to a gas stove then yeah - gas is better. But once you start using decent induction… it’s not really a problem unless you like to move your pan around a lot and even then - you can learn a different technique to get a similar effect.

I agree and almost put in discussion about induction in my first reply. But I think the difference is one of economics for most people. I realize HN probably skews towards the higher income range, so sometimes I feel like this discussion comes across as tone deaf when the median household (not person) income in the U.S. is about $67k.

The newer induction ranges are awesome. But they are very expensive by comparison to a comparable gas range. For an average person, they are probably out of range (ha) in terms of price point. Add to it that your existing cookware may not work with it, and it's a deal breaker for a lot of average people. For someone like a landlord, they will almost always go with the cheaper option. If I was renting and had the choice between an cheap electric range or gas, I'd always prefer the gas. I hope the tech progresses enough to bring the price down to be competitive in the future.

It's a lot like the discussions around heat-pumps. I love the ideas of heat pumps in homes. But I also realize the initial sticker cost is too much for people to bear. When natural gas prices have been as low as they have been in the last decade, it's hard to blame people for selecting a natural gas furnace.

I love the more efficient options, but I do think people don't always recognize they are, to an average consumer, a luxury and a hard sell when they are just trying to make ends meet. That's partly why some of the talk comes across to some as elitist and it hurts the ability to convert people.

Gas stoves get hot faster and respond quickly when you turn the dial, that's their big advantage. But electric is hotter. Even plain resistance coil electric elements put out much more heat than gas. Try to boil a pot of water on gas vs electric and it's no contest, electric wins.

And of course, modern induction electric elements are better in every way as long as you don't mind throwing out all your cheap alluminum pots

>electric is hotter.

In what sense? Both have BTU ratings to determine their capacity. Just for kicks, I looked at a few units online at a mid-range price point of about $1500. The gas ones had 18-20 kBTU burners and the electric were around 10 kBTU burners, so the gas has considerably higher output. As you say, gas is basically instantaneous once the flame is present while electric has a lag, so it's going to take longer to get to that capacity for the electric. Maybe your point is that electric transfers heat better? I couldn't find any sources on that. Add to it that the colors of the flame/heating element as a general rule of thumb for temperature, the gas is higher on the temperature spectrum.

Walkability is the fad now. Just like cars replacing streetcars was in the past.

In this case one I'm glad to support.

As a US immigrant with chronic health issues from walking miles to work in a 3rd world country, cars are a boon for me now.

I think the idea of walkability isn’t that you spend hours having to walk everyday to do menial tasks. It’s that you’re within very short distances of places.

I am glad to support it as well, but I can also acknowledge a lot of people scoff at it (and bike lanes, for that matter).

> public transit . . . individualistic frontier mentality

A century ago, most American cities had some kind of tram system. And the cities were connected by railroads - actual passenger trains. People were sold the idea of automotive independence. That notion was completely manufactured for our consumption. We didn't have the bureaucracy in place to keep mass transit in place, so when people used it less, it lost money and was largely torn out. Without bureaucracy in place to give people time to think, we're stuck with the swift wisdom of the market.

When I lived in Seattle, I was half a block from an old commuter line that's buried in asphalt now. The city just installed "innovative" light rail a few blocks away. Progress! /s

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8562007/streetcar-history-demis...

That's the point I was trying to get across. The automobile created fostered an individualistic culture related to transport that is very hard for people to give up. Most cities still have bus routes, but people generally don't want to use them if they can use a car instead.

What if there is an overarching malaise of dysfunction, inefficiency and apathy towards ambition to build a better nation? 1950’s USA was very different than today.

I've worked with some brilliant government orgs (NIST) but more often than not, many have the problem of top-down management and bureaucratic class that has no checks and balances, that is impossible to get rid of, and perpetuate dysfunction, overbilling, etc. No one questions them, media is busy with other things, and we always talk about funding the gov, but never asking "Can we do more with the same amount?". At least, private enterprises have skin in the game and they'd be toast if their products and services does not perform or is overbudget. Similar to government agencies, as private enterprises get larger (GE, Lockheed, IBM, P&G, Mitsubishi), they have exact same problems as governments.

The solution is to completely start over. We did that in 1950's when many new agencies were formed. They were vibrant and well functioning. Without a garbage-collector process so-to-speak, government agencies tend to become dysfunctional.

I love Eli Dourado's blog, particularly these two articles:

How to move needle on progress: https://elidourado.com/blog/move-the-needle-on-progress/

Notes on technology in the 2020s: https://elidourado.com/blog/notes-on-technology-2020s/

Re-orgs are often partially a garbage collection process, I have noticed. Lots of talk about "efficiency" and "better alignment". All fluff you expect, but in practical terms, a lot of people get let go, projects and org units disappear, and priorities are reorganized. The whole operation is expected to work as if the re-org never happened, and often it will.

Yeah. The major slow projects I can think of in recent years; Second Ave. Subway, East Side Access, Crossrail, etc. all involve deep bore tunneling through some of the most densely occupied land on Earth. Utility relocation, minimizing disruption to residents and businesses, etc. are the "hard part" here. If you could just nuke Midtown, East Side Access would have been easy. If you could demolish half of the Upper East Side, build a subway in the crater, and then cover it with new buildings, it would have been ready sooner. But, that's impractical. People are emotionally attached to their homes and neighborhoods.

That said, future projects can probably done more cheaply. IBX and QueensLink won't involve much underground work, and the right of way is already clear. The problem is that the benefit isn't clear enough to actually fund the projects and get them started. (That is an even more complicated problem. The MTA is a state body, subway lines entirely within the city are not something people on Long Island and Westchester want to pay for. Maybe there should be some sort of Independent Subway that the city itself pays for ;)

See also Seattle’s SR99 tunnel and Boston’s Big Dig (though the latter is 15 years old now).

Tunneling through an existing city, often near water, is just hideously complex and expensive.

I remember when I was in Boston a discussion of how to expand one of the T-lines under Tufts Medical Center without causing vibrational problems for the equipment in the hospital right above.

That's a non-trivial engineering challenge.

Have the hospital cease usage of the equipment and relocate appointments for that equipment.

Gonna be awkward to shut down a major children's hospital in a city for an indeterminate period of time.

Who said you need to shut down usage of the whole hospital? Just usage of those specific machines.

The low cost leader in subway construction is Spain and they use deep bore tunneling, and they even use larger tunnels than most everyone else (one large tunnel is more expensive than two smaller ones)

I don't disagree with most of that, but some places in the US do put some priority on public transit. Much to the annoyance of local neighborhoods, for example, Tri-met in Portland regularly proposes and then eventually builds out new light rail lines through existing neighborhoods. The bus network could be better in outlying areas but in the city proper it is pretty useful for many people, not a toy. And Portland builds new highways rarely. Aside from small extensions, there hasn't been a new interstate-size highway created in decades. It all stopped in the 70s (though the final bits didn't get finished until the mid 80s).

Edit: IMO Portland could really justify another interstate and Columbia river crossing to the east of the city, but probably won't do it. It would primarily serve lower income people who've migrated out that direction, and they don't really have much voting power. I don't envy their commute since so much of it has to be on surface streets before they hit a major arterial. The light rail has a leg that direction but it's slow, and there's just one out there.

Highways do not serve low income areas, public transit does.

Portland is entirely justified in not building expensive and low density transit solutions (highways) to service communities. A BRT or Light Rail line will justify the cost significantly better and lead to denser, transit oriented development along the path: All of which better serves the poor.

Beaverton, Hillsboro and Washington County meanwhile are busy widening roads like always.

> Wages are high

Maybe, but I think it's more that the managers/owners are greedy and need big profit margins, especially to pay back their political connections who gave them the contract to begin with.

Corruption exists in some form at every step of a publicly funded project. People are too apathetic to care, and the process for getting a road repaved or whatever has been made almost entirely opaque to the electorate. Especially at the county and state levels, where serious cash gets gifted or grifted all the time.

I'm very confident that the amount of greed and corruption in New York in 1905 was greater than or equal to the modern amount. See: Tammany Hall.

>the process for getting a road repaved or whatever has been made almost entirely opaque to the electorate.

Most government contracts use an open bid process which is much less opaque than what happens in private contracts. What transparency are you specifically looking for?

"- The US is also not very interested in trying to learn from what construction techniques, etc. have worked for public transit in other countries"

That would also apply to other areas like health care. Exceptionalism is not a good thing to improve yourself.

I’ll add one more: there is a strong preference in a large percentage of the population for suburban and rural style homes and light business areas. We build a ton of that and often very quickly. We are very good at building that type of landscape.

The HN crowd tends not to be the target market for this though so it gets criticized and downplayed here.

There has been a shift toward urbanism in the last 25 years though, and prices exploding in the cities show that the market is lagging in satisfying that demand.

COVID has definitely slowed down urbanization.

> there is a strong preference in a large percentage of the population for suburban and rural style homes and light business areas. We build a ton of that and often very quickly.

Because that's the only thing you can build. The zoning regulations don't let anything else happen easily. You can't reason from this that this is what people actually prefer.

You can't reason that that's what most people prefer, but it likewise seems clear that if most people in some town/city did prefer something else, the zoning laws would be changed.

In a world where there is little to no friction and no incentives to prolong the changing of those laws, yes. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in. Even something as simple as wanting to change it but seeing the immense amount of effort to try and get it noticed is enough to dissuade most people from trying.

No, that isn't clear at all. Bad and unpopular laws can remain on the books for a long time if there is a politically powerful minority who benefits from them.

Also it might just be that most people don't even know about the problem.

There's a huge generational divide here. When Gen-X and younger people get control of city governments you'll see this shift.

California changed zoning laws recently...

Among young white people, this perception has shifted dramatically over the last 15 years.

I was born and raised in a city, never before have so many young white people wanted to move here.

One needs to consider, however, why people prefer this kind of homes in the US, compared to most countries. It is probably because life is so hard and expensive on most American cities. And I say this as somebody from another country, where cities are livable and provide lots of advantages -- something that we associate in the US only to New York City and its high associated costs.

Just putting in a quiet vote for Chicago, that most underrated and magnificent of American cities. If you don't mind the risk of getting murdered once in a while, the city is affordable, beautiful, walkable, full of great food and good people, and has arguably one of the country's best public transit systems. It also has household garbage collection, unlike NYC's trash mountains. It reminds me a lot of the great metropolises outside the country.

It really makes other US cities like Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, etc. seem like quaint little backwater neighborhoods. Most of those have become little more than traffic-ridden strip malls, preserving a tiny downtown district but everywhere else is mostly just a bunch of drive-up destinations with little pedestrian activity and not much liveliness. Chicago's neighborhoods are still super vibrant and full of festivals, and even in the deep snow of winter people will bustle on the sidewalks and converge on the fun pubs and music venues and such. I've never seen anything else like that in the US.

But, yes, walk a few blocks in the wrong direction and you'll soon be dead. Despite that, millions make it their home. It's an amazing place to live.

it's so cold though how do you survive the winters?

Climate change... not so cold anymore. Last two years we barely even had a winter

Clothes.

The brutally cold winters are a dealbreaker for me, even if they do contribute to Chicago’s affordability.

What are the net advantages of being in a city? It used to be access to good employment was the main thing but with remote work this often isn't as much of a factor anymore. Access to better restaurants, music and sporting events are definitely advantages but limited access to nature, traffic congestion, etc. are disadvantages. I'd say it is more of a lifestyle tradeoff.

>What are the net advantages of being in a city? It used to be access to good employment was the main thing but with remote work this often isn't as much of a factor anymore.

This is only really true for the type of privileged person posting on HackerNews (me included), other groups don't have that privilege in the same way.

>Access to better restaurants, music and sporting events are definitely advantages

Add to this the potential to live without having to own a car. The transportation infrastructure of good cities beat having to drive all the time.

One other popular thing I've heard is a much larger dating pool, which is probably true.

>limited access to nature

Good cities include good green spaces. I can access at least two major hiking trails that stretch for about a week with public transportation, and also a huge archipelago.

>traffic congestion

This is an issue unique to car-oriented development, though, because of how poorly this category of development scales. Cities with high-quality public transportation and bicycle infrastructure don't suffer from the same amount of traffic congestion, and the issue is less relevant as good alternatives for getting around exist.

The poor shape of America's cities is both a cause and an effect. There are numerous other reasons. Here's the big ones in no particular order:

(1) America's very old and ongoing racism problem, hence "white flight" and cycles of re-development due to segregation.

(2) The "law of rent" and the connection between the growth of the middle class and the use of suburbanization to escape high urban property prices and eternal rent to a landlord class: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_rent -- This one is tough to solve and is still a problem. There's a new re-suburbanization trend driven in part by young people realizing it's hard to build wealth if you can only ever rent. This is also a major driver of remote work. COVID just accelerated the remote work trend.

(3) A cultural legacy of preference for the outdoors and the frontier and a desire of a large number of people to have at least some land. This is a romantic idea in American culture that is not as strong in Europe or Asia.

(4) Cities were horribly polluted during the early to mid industrial era. Even those who lived in cities often maintained country homes or vacationed in the country whenever possible if they could afford it, with a major driver being to get away from the noise and pollution.

(5) Lastly, cars were invented in the USA and the automobile industry was and still is a major economic engine and employer in the country. America is where car culture really took hold if not originated. Car culture is still quite strong even though younger generations seem less enamored by it.

Fear of racism is a bigger problem than racism itself. Most people don't care, but the fear of that minority that does causes all sorts of bureaucracy to fight it (which in turn needs to feed racism to justify its existence). Also fear of that minority is causing lots of people to not buy near the out races for fear of not being able to sell, thus driving prices down.

Racism is like crime. It takes 0.1% violent criminals in a neighborhood to make it a "bad neighborhood." It takes just a few determined racists to make the entire neighborhood racist.

The people who are not racist generally don't know racism is even a problem if it's not affecting them. Fighting it would require bureaucratic trench warfare, and most people don't have time for that shit. There is probably an inverse correlation between people who have better things to do and racism anyway, since the racists tend to be the types who... lets just say have enough time on their hands to be actively racist because... well... lets just say there's probably a reason they don't have better things to do.

Is this last point still true? I would imagine most poor area land is still owned by rich people?

They might not care about it being compulsorily acquired at a decent price. They'd be less likely to have an emotional attachment to an investment property than to their current or ancestral home.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com