2 min read

71

The more I learn about urban planning, the more I realize that the American city I live in is dystopic. I'm referring specifically to urban planning, and I'm not being hyperbolic. Have you ever watched the teen dystopia movie Divergent? The whole city is perfectly walkable (or parkourable, if you're Dauntless). I don't know if it even has cars. The USA's urban planning is so bad it's worse than a literal sci-fi dystopia.

Filming Locations of Chicago and Los Angeles: Divergent

[One of the above images is a screenshot from the young adult dystopia movie Divergent. The other is a photo of Tacoma, Washington.]

Sometimes I consider moving to a city with more weirdo nerds. Then I remember Lightcone's headquarters is in San Francisco. On the cost of living vs good urban planning tradeoff, "Let's all move to San Francisco" is the worst coordination failure I can imagine.

It is said that urbanists are radicalized by Amsterdam or Tokyo. Well, I'm in Osaka right now, and as far as I can tell, it's just as good as Tokyo. If you want to know why Japanese cities are so awesome, go watch this video by Not Just Bikes which undersells how good Japan's cities are, because the video discusses only the streets, without mentioning how many small businesses it is possible to pack into a building. These effects are multiplicative. There are about as many coffee shops within walking distances of my random hotel in downtown Osaka than there are anywhere in Seattle, the city Starbucks originated in. This isn't because Osaka is especially into coffee. It's because Osaka has such high density and walkability that there's a huge quantity of all businesses within walking distance, some of which happen to be coffee shops—and that's before considering Osaka's excellent subway system. Restaurants aren't just convenient. They're cheap too, especially if you earn income in USD.

It's not perfect. Most importantly to me, the chairs are all for Japanese-sized people. I'm taller than that.

I notice that high-agency people are very likely to move cities. Usually this is for work or entrepreneurship. But if you have the freedom to choose what city you live in, then it may be worth optimizing for quality of life.

street, town, alley, road, neighbourhood, urban area, snapshot, human settlement, infrastructure, lane, city, building, architecture, pedestrian, tree, tourism, photography, nonbuilding structure, metropolis, downtown, vacation
New Comment
12 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Seems the perfect post to link one of the best blog posts I have ever read on the internet: How Japanese zoning works. 

https://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html

Maybe tangential, but this reminded me of a fun fact about Hong Kong's metro: it's funded by land value. They put a station and get some land development rights near it. Well, building the station obviously makes land around it more valuable. So they end up putting stations where they'd be most useful, and fares can be cheap because the metro company makes plenty of money from land. So the end result is cheap, well-planned public transport which is profitable and doesn't take government money.

In Copenhagen every street has wide sidewalks and bike lanes in both directions, and there's lots of public transport too. It's good.

That sounds like it would be interesting to visit.

Agreed! There’s definitely room for improvement in U.S. urban planning.

[-]R S10

Everyone is more likely to move to cities 

I vaguely remember that some physicist calculated that the density of everything you want increases by 15% every time a city doubles in size 

So there's essentially a gravitational pull to cities 

Not unlike how (unconstrained by gravity) sea creatures continue to grow in mass because it's more heat energy efficient due to the difference in scaling of volume to surface area

Thoughts on bullet trains to expand cities?

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mrBZh7YG4nmcjAcof/xpostah-s-shortform?commentId=HudMWqBiavjuYJFxY

Bullet trains are nice, but I feel they make more sense for connecting cities. Generally-speaking, the best direction to expand cities is to build upward and downward.

Can you share why?

If I understand correctly, skyscrapers don't scale as well due to shadow. For every additional floor of skyscraper that's built, there's multiple floors worth of ground area on which building another skyscraper is now a bad idea. So a large region with densely packed 4-storey buildings packs more people than the same region but with some 100-storey skyscrapers.

I think we're in agreement that dense 4-story buildings tend to be usually more efficient than skyscrapers. I'm mostly referring to the cities like Paris which are shorter than free market economics would build—and especially cities (and even more, suburbs) of the USA where land use restrictions are even more restrictive.

Yes I’m assuming political elites ambitious enough to build a intracity network of bullet train will also figure out some solutions for this. Land use restrictions are okay if the city is big enough. Assuming 400 km * 400 km city with 200 km/h train, that’s a lot of land area. Even if some of it is used inefficiently, it may not have large effects. I do think allowing free market-ish building for the city makes sense here though, rather than a slow permitting system for each building. This is for speed alone. 

[+][comment deleted]10
More from lsusr
Curated and popular this week