Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1138 | Hacker News Reader

I work remotely in SF. I live here because I like not owning a car, walking and biking most places, and non-tech things to do. I'm just lucky I can afford it. The solution is to build more good US cities that aren't car centric. I'm not aware of any. Build a from scratch city with a target of at least 250k residents on the California coast and I'll move.

I don't know how many people think similarly, but there's still a lot of non-tech people in SF.

View on HN

The best way i've seen this framed is: in all of the US, there are only about 2,000 blocks of housing with sufficient density & walkable services to support car free living. This is some of the most sought after and expensive real estate in the country, but zoning codes won't allow more of it to be built.

Example zoning restrictions: mandatory building setbacks, mandatory parking requirements, mandatory building separations, maximum units per building, 1 or 2 story maximum heights, high minimum lot sizes.

Note: a significant % of those 2,000 blocks are in San Francisco.

Manhattan alone is on the order of 2000 blocks, I don't know where you came up with that figure.

Poorly recalling from my memory. Given that a "block" is a variable metric, the actual number is less important than the concept that it is a static. There are only ~5 cities in the US with > 1,000 of these blocks: NYC, Boston, DC, SF, Chicago (Philadelphia?, Baltimore?)* AND with a transportation network that makes car-free living possible. Developers would build more such areas if zoning allowed.

* Forgive my ignorance for being from the West Coast. Even in SF its difficult to live car free if you don't live on BART or Muni Metro.

This is very interesting, but I can't use it unless you have a reference I can cite.

I'm also curious how many units there are in those 2000 blocks.

  high minimum lot sizes.

I'm confused. I can hardly think of an area with smaller average single family house lot areas than SF.

Exactly. Developers are economically incentivized to subdivide to the maximum extent. Low minimum lot sizes encourages small lot sizes = high density.

Right. Something like a third of Manhattan buildings could not be built today due to similar zoning restrictions.

US cities that aren't car centric: Portland, Seattle, New York, Boston. Nearby: Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto. Afar: London, Paris, Berlin.

Arguably San Francisco is the most car-centric of the bunch with its comparatively non-functional transportation system.

As somebody who lives in Portland it still seems very much "car centric". There are some people who are able to get along without a car. There are others who can commute via bus or bike.

But it's really difficult to get around without a car. What sucks is that the city is making it more difficult to get around by limiting the number of cars on streets (Glisan, Division, heading into town on Burnside, soon Foster) without providing much in the way of alternatives. Buses aren't running more often and they don't have protected right-of-ways that would let get around traffic jams.

I'll agree that what they're doing on NE Broadway, protecting bicyclists, looks good. But they're doing it that very rarely.

Most of these lose on weather, culture or proximity to the ocean for me.

All of SF isn't easy car free, but I live downtown. SF could have significantly better mass transit. In order to get completely car free in my lifetime would probably require opt in to a new city due to people who have jobs related to things that should be removed.

NYC is too dense and the main prominent industries appear to be wall Street, advertising, and fashion which are not things I like. Car traffic is also pretty horrible.

How about Chicago? The #2 biggest non-car centric city in the nation?

You can get around D.C. without a car---by which I mean the city proper and not the other metro areas.

In fact in the city, you're burdened by having a car.

You can easily extend that across the river to Arlington, VA. There's extensive public transportation. Cycling is taken seriously. Maybe the City of Alexandria, too; but, not the "Alexandria" part of Fairfax.

Before the Metro ceased to exist.

>> The solution is to build more good US cities that aren't car centric. I'm not aware of any.

NYC is definitely not car-centric or even car-friendly. Indeed, the non-car-centric zone there is considerably larger than SF's. Other cities like Washington DC and Boston are not too different so long as you don't venture too far from downtown.

The weather and people there are crap if you're used to the west coast. Winters suck and the rudeness of NYC people is insufferable in the long run for me.

Portland and Seattle are both excellent cities to live in if you want a car free existence on the west coast.

Seattle? Downtown maybe. The east side (across Lake Washington) is very suburban, and not particularly suited to car-free living. I lived there car-less for a couple of summers and got into alarmingly good shape biking up and down the eastside hills.

"alarmingly good shape"

I'm imagining you one day looking down at your body and realizing, "Oh shit, I'm way too fit. Better cut out all this biking!"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com