
Ask HN: How would you fix cities? - timfrietas
If you could significantly change them to run more efficiently, what would you do to change them?
======
maxharris
On a heavily-used block with tall buildings on both sides, here's a recipe
that will work well:

1\. Dig up the street and sidewalks, going down 60-100 feet.

2\. At the bottom of this pit, drive in piles if you haven't yet hit bedrock.

3\. Build a box, about twenty feet high, to run plumbing, power internet, and
other utilities

4\. On top of that box, build another one for a train.

5\. On top of that box, build another one for vehicles to pass through.
Because we're aiming for the future, we can assume that the vehicles in this
box will be purely electric, and won't need the kind of ventilation that most
of today's vehicles do.

6\. On top of that box, build a basement, perhaps with alleyway access on both
sides (these should be narrow - no wider than approximately 15 feet.)

7\. Now we're on the street level, above ground - a building should rise up
minimally two to four stories from here. On both sides, narrow streets should
be constructed, reserved only for foot traffic. Shops, bars and restaurants of
varying sizes should line both sides of the street.

8\. Install vibration and light sensors inside each partition wall in the new
buildings, as well as in the existing buildings that line the street.
Establish a legal framework allows anyone to use the spaces inside each
building for any purpose, so long as both parties on either side of each wall
and floor agree to specified limits (with the existing owner's terms taking
precedence over that of the newcomer - note that there is give and take here,
as a space in which you can't make any noise or let any light leak out isn't
worth much compared to one in which you can.) With this in place, inflexible
one-size-fits-all zoning restrictions are no longer needed.

This arrangement can be implemented slowly, on a block-by-block basis, to
transform any any every pedestrian-unfriendly American city into a vibrant
urban paradise for people like me that seek this.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
It also leaves you a one-block-long tunnel for a train, and another for a
road, for _years_ until you get the blocks around it done - probably for
decades until you get a system that goes anywhere.

~~~
maxharris
Sure, but you have to start somewhere. Why waste money digging up the same
street over and over, as most cities do? It seems more efficient to do it once
and be done for a long time thereafter.

~~~
WalterBright
Here in Seattle, we spend $$$$ buying a tunnel boring machine, bore a
transportation tunnel for a section, and then ...

... cut up the boring machine for scrap!

It's like setting up a giant printing press to print a newspaper, and then
printing 10 copies.

~~~
Tomte
At least you're getting something back. When the channel between Dover and
Calais was bored, one of the boring machines was simply left underground,
because it would have been to expensive to retrieve it.

------
shortoncash
I would restrict traffic to very specific use cases, like Uber, taxis, public
transit, and charge high tolls for everyone else. Then, I'd encourage e-bike
or bike rebates/tax credits. The traffic situation in cities is really out of
hand. The fact that this country has an obesity epidemic just makes this
solution even more appealing to me.

This isn't really a "freedom" oriented line of thinking and I get a lot of
hate from people with certain political bents when I mention this idea, but
there's no social value in total gridlock. Cities are a special situation
where the streets are a public resource that needs to be allocated properly.
The streets are nowhere near being allocated properly in most of the cities I
have lived in.

~~~
sevilo
this may work well for smaller cities that are highly dense, but for a lot of
North American cities, where a large population live in the suburbs and
commute into city center for work, public transit are often unreliable and
there's not big enough of a population overall support long hour, frequent
services. I don't think it's fair or realistic to ask them to bike multiple
hours to get to work everyday. Not to say hate, but I do find this type of
proposal or thinking somewhat elitist and completely ignorant to the fact that
there are others who do not live in cities yet depend on them for a living.
Many people already choose to live in the suburb in order to lower their
living cost compared to living in city centers, is it fair that they will be
charged high tolls compare to whoever that's able to afford city center
living?

~~~
shortoncash
Is it fair? No. However, people who don't live within a city really aren't in
a position to dictate how that city should be run if they don't actually live
and vote there.

Plus, employers would eventually just provide transit options to their labor
pool. It would be similar to the bus services that the large companies in
Silicon Valley use to bus in employees from neighboring cities and towns. The
market and transportation systems would realign to fix problems.

------
AnimalMuppet
That's not easy.

Take public transit, for instance. Arguably, that would be a good thing to
change - supply fast, frequent, convenient public transit. But how would you
do it?

US cities (with few exceptions) have reached a stable equilibrium where cars
are necessary because there's no convenient transit, there's no transit
because the city doesn't have the density to make it worthwhile, and it can't
have the density because there has to be parking for everybody's cars. How do
you change that? You have to change all three pieces at once (plus peoples'
attitudes). You almost have to start over with a new city.

~~~
combatentropy
Of course the U.S. has the chicken-and-egg problem, but public transit is my
vote if I could wave a magic wand. I am tired of car cities: more pollution,
obesity, rage, and sprawl.

~~~
tbihl
I'd say the logical place to start in the US is by finding the streets that
have negative cash flow just from maintaining the infrastructure, and start
handing those streets back over to the home- and business-owners located on
them, in whatever way seems the least politically suicidal. If you live in a
cheap SFH on a whole acre,or own storage units, there's no reason you should
expect urban-quality roads, water, sewage, and emergency services.

------
davidw
In the US? Less zoning.

[https://bendyimby.com/2017/06/12/yimby-
reading/](https://bendyimby.com/2017/06/12/yimby-reading/) for more reading.

~~~
muzani
That link seems to cover a lot of scattered topics. Care to explain more?

~~~
davidw
If you read those, there's a common thread.

------
panic
What do you mean by "run more efficiently"?

Just focusing on space efficiency: very dense cities could build an
underground transportation system connecting people's homes directly to space-
efficient, centralized facilities. Instead of having a kitchen, you would
order food or freshly-prepared ingredients to combine yourself. Instead of
doing laundry by hand, you would send it to a centralized laundry facility,
which would clean it for you and send it back. Trash would be disposed of
using the same system. You could also use this system to store and retrieve
things you use infrequently, so they don't have to take up space in your home.

A system like this would enable higher density by reducing the number of
facilities you need in and adjacent to your home. It would free up road space
by focusing commercial traffic on these centralized facilities instead of
distributing it throughout the city. And it would free up road-side space by
lowering the demand for laundromats, supermarkets, and so on.

------
MrTonyD
I was amazed when I heard that Copenhagen had a government department focused
on Quality of Life. And that the bike culture of Denmark was created when they
decided that cars were harming their quality of life (it was a 30 year
project.) And Finland decided to focus their University on improving life -
rather than just generic research. Considering those examples, I would say
that cities need to reflect the needs and desires of their citizens - as
opposed to the business leaders, the rich, and their politicians.

------
ajeet_dhaliwal
Put a limit (e.g. 1) on the number of residential properties any individual
person can own within city limits and make them (residential properties only
within city limits) illegal to buy for a corporation.

A lot of people might think 'socialist' and I may have said the same a few
years ago but having seen issues up front, lives (within some cities) are
being completely ruined with the hoarding and speculation.

~~~
Eridrus
So no-one can move to this city unless they can afford a mortgage there with
it's associated closing costs?

~~~
panic
Presumably people could still rent out their own property, as long as the
owner is an individual who either lives on the premises, rents (but doesn't
own) another place in the city, or lives outside the city entirely.

------
dangjc
Do anything recommended by
[http://www.strongtowns.org](http://www.strongtowns.org)

------
Jemaclus
Most of my ideas revolve around the need for better transportation.

Ideal (for me) but completely impractical: the interstate exits end in giant
parking garages. Everyone walks, bikes, or takes light-rail/buses to get
around the city. Only vehicles allowed in the city are deliver vehicles
between 11pm-7am. This would probably only work in very small cities, sadly.

More realistic:

Las Vegas has the right idea on the Strip, though it definitely needs
improvement. Cars and pedestrians should never have to compete for street-
crossing opportunities. Pedestrian bridges to cross major avenues. Ground-
level entrances should lead to parking garages or elevators.

All customer-centric stuff should be on the "second" level where the
pedestrians walk. Imagine just taking every sidewalk and jacking it up 12
feet. You aren't walking on the street, you're walking on a raised sidewalk
that goes from building to building. This completely eliminates the need for
pedestrians to stop and wait to cross the street, while still allowing cars
free reign below. You could turn entire intersections into courtyards, freeing
up more real estate for street vendors.

This also frees up real estate for larger building footprints -- you don't
need as many street-level parking spaces if every building's ground-floor is a
giant parking lot!

I'm sure all of the above is totally impractical and that you'll all shoot it
down with pesky facts... but a man can dream... :)

------
WalterBright
I'd make them much more walkable, by blocking off certain short sections of
streets from car traffic during certain hours. Many european cities do this,
and it works well.

~~~
ehnto
Adelaide has been building up walkable laneways that span the whole city to
move in that direction. They are permenantly foot traffic only and they are
hands down the best places to wander in the city. To eat outside is so nice
when there are no cars shooting past, you don't notice how much noise they add
until they are gone entirely.

------
jotjotzzz
I think Jacque Fresco's idea with the Venus Project is worth pondering:
[https://www.thevenusproject.com/](https://www.thevenusproject.com/). I wish
the philosophy makes it in new cities being built now. Whatever it may be, we
need to live alongside nature and make sure the city produces waste that can
be broken down by nature readily, and at the same time it must be a symbiotic
relationship.

~~~
GFischer
I didn't "get" the Venus project, but I am wary of "designed" cities, they
aren't very liveable (see: Brazilia or Astana).

------
tmaly
I would make them more walking and bike friendly.

Schools, I would like full control be at the parent level or city level and
not at the state of federal level.

I would like to see more of the mundane jobs at the city level automated so
property taxes could be lowered. In the state I live some property taxes
approach 5 percent of the assessed value. High property taxes make it
prohibitive for elderly people to retire in the place they grew up in. You
lose some of the community.

------
pythia__
If obvious inefficiencies are not being fixed, nobody's incentives are aligned
with fixing them. A sustainable solution must address the wrong or weak
incentives, not try to fix the inefficiencies one at a time. Business owners
are uniquely empowered and incentivized to address inefficiencies in their
businesses and to compete for the customer. They lose money if they provide a
product that isn't good enough. Making cities businesses would allow you to
leverage that.

------
owebmaster
I would teach every citizen how society and politics works and that there is
no magic solution to social problems.

------
ilaksh
I came up with some ideas a year or two ago :
[http://tinyvillages.org](http://tinyvillages.org)

~~~
tomcam
Fun! But what if I want to learn tuba or practice opera singing? (Not trolling
you, I really mean this.)

~~~
ilaksh
I think what you are implying is that since the buildings are close together
there will be a noise pollution issue.

Obviously little buildings are not going to be adequate for everything like an
orchestra or opera performance. So that isn't meant to apply to every single
building.

But as far as practicing those things, generally there is sound proofing in
those types of music practice rooms, and also I have suggested airtight
construction with SIPs and HRV. This means most of the sound is insulated
between outside and inside anyway without any sound proofing.

Also, this is partly an alternative to apartments or townhomes, where walls
and/or floors/ceilings are shared. So obviously an advantage there even
without the advanced construction and ventilation.

~~~
tomcam
The homes look too small for practice rooms, and I practice a lot--this
couldn't be in a shared community room. It would have to be at home (I think).
Asking b/c it applies to other noisy activities such as running a saw for DIY
projects or even just neighbors who scream at each other.

------
tabeth
Make private passenger vehicles illegal and replace them with buses. Most
issues will resolve themselves.

