Found in 7 comments on Hacker News
PaulHoule · 2017-10-04 · Original thread
Often designers put their hearts into things that look like junk to people on the outside, or otherwise are not appreciated or have practical downsides. This is particularly well documented in architecture, see

and also

I think there is nothing wrong with the "design" of reddit and HN. Those designs do the job; I think in most cases the design is just a container for the content. People come to these sites because they want to enjoy the discussion, not because they want to enjoy art.

If anybody has a complaint about the design of HN, it is that they have a hard time reading it on phones with small screens.

jakewins · 2016-11-13 · Original thread
They don't mean big, they mean bad. Which obviously is subjective: In this case, I assume they mean, as I do, "bad" from the perspective of "encourages community building & social connections".

If you walk down a street in, say, Amsterdam, or down one in St Louis, it's two very different experiences - Amsterdam teeming with life, it feels close, safe and small. You can bike anywhere in 30 minutes; the layout of the city itself encourages pedestrian traffic. The marginal cost of popping into the bakery next to the wine store is 30 seconds, so the streets are lined with small mom & pop stores that care, genuinely care about how their street is doing, that the sidewalk is welcoming..

St Louis is a city replanned for cars - you do not move in St Louis but by automobile. The marginal cost of going to two stores instead of one is at least ten minutes, so you always go to Schnucks and call it a day. Biking from one point to another is a lost cause - I literally saw a woman crush the skull of a bicyclist with her SUV in St Louis just last month, he's dead now because fuck bike lanes.

And Amsterdam is three times as populous as St Louis.

Cannot recommend enough for this - urban planning has a massive impact on our lives.

jakewins · 2016-09-20 · Original thread
Highly recommend if you are interested in articles like this; still trying to explain to city councils over a hundred years after Ebenezer wrote "To-Morrow" ( why he was horrifically wrong.

If you want to dive deeper into this, Jane Jacobs's "Death and Life of the Great American Cities" is an incredible and very approachable book on urban planning:

heurist · 2016-09-14 · Original thread
It's not. I'd recommend Jane Jacobs' "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" to anyone interested in a comprehensive picture of what it takes to make cities livable:

Also read up on all the work Singapore is doing to increase density without ruining their economy or environment while improving livability.

And some further reading on the dynamics of city growth:

I love thinking about this stuff, complex and fascinating :)

apenwarr · 2016-05-08 · Original thread
For a more nuanced view of this whole topic, I recommend the book The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs.

Many of the counterarguments in these comments (especially that smaller cities, or rural areas, are fine even when American suburbs are not) are actually reasonable, and Jacobs covers them in her book.

Since it's from 1961, you might think the insights would be dated, but they're not. She was complaining even as these mistakes were being made, and it's fascinating to read so many of her predictions that we can now say clearly came true.

panic · 2015-07-08 · Original thread
Yeah, The Death and Life of Great American Cities is a good read if you want more detail about why this is a terrible idea (
mc32 · 2012-09-10 · Original thread
Good question. I'm not sure. Maybe it's economics, or maybe a combination of economics and zoning. The one area in SF which got the 'stamp of approval' for that vision, is the China Basin/Mission Bay area. Those tend to be 6 to 15 floor developments. I think that's a good direction. It's not super tall but also does not despoil land with awful low-rise ininspired developments with the collapse-prone first floors (the ones with 'garages' on the first floors).

On the economic side, I think cities prefer single family devs because they can levy more taxes (as they do it per acre, I think). I don't see why they don't tax by livable (inhabitable) space and land, that way they can compensate for the greater density in required services.

Anyway, I've begun reading Jane Jacobs's "The Death and Life of Great American Cities"[1]. It provides interesting insight into the suburbanization of America (and other places, of course, but she looks at the American side of it) and its impact on quality of life and how it may be time to rethink the suburbanization and revitalize cities to make the inner cores actual livable places, not just places where people drive in for work. It's an old tome, but it's still very relevant today.

W:re Soviet style (and even section 8 in the US and Council Estates in the UK) the planners were kind of utilitarian and naive. They more or less saw them as solutions for housing people as if they were storing objects. Little in the way of allowances for human nature. The plans were a bit too abstract. For example, let's say they thought it'd be nice to have a community area. They'd afford a room somewhere in a building, but put little thought on where might be optimum or how people might use it and have equally easy access to it. So they might end up being dingy unused areas which might just get defaced or used by low level criminals.


Fresh book recommendations delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday.