Desirable streets: where do people prefer to walk?(senseable.mit.edu)
senseable.mit.edu
Desirable streets: where do people prefer to walk?
https://senseable.mit.edu/desirable-streets/
99 comments
This sounds a lot like downtown Minneapolis. In the 70's they went all in on the skyway system - a series of enclosed walkways over streets that went through the second floor of many buildings. The result is that all of the retail and amenities got pushed to the interiors of these buildings, and the facades were reduced to featureless stretches, save for a few particular streets (Hennepin and Nicollet). I admit when I worked downtown that I enjoyed not having to go outside in the winter, but much of downtown lacks charm and utility.
The 99% Invisible podcast discussed some of the effects of the skyway just last week.
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/beneath-the-skyway
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/beneath-the-skyway
Nice find, I agree with a lot of it. I'm not sure I would be in favor of tearing them down; they are just soooooo nice in the winter, which is long. But the street level needs to be rehabilitated.
There is some basic math that can make a pedestrian downtown difficult. A walking person needs the resource of space, time in the pathway. So take the number of employees per square foot of office space (~200 sf per employee) to get an estimate of the total number of people in a downtown area. If we assume they each need to commute in/out each day we need a system of movement that can accommodate that number. Even if they are all elite joggers willing to run a couple miles each day, there is only so much street before people have to be relegated to tunnels/bridges. Depending on the office density, there are likely a great many cities where pedestrian commutes are physically impossible for the majority (London, NYC). Either they live downtown or we must move them in/out by faster mechanical means.
This is actually a very studied problem in pedestrian-dominated areas such as stadiums, airports and theme parks. There is a breaking point when the numbers get so big that you simply have to haul people to/from the perimeter entrances. I'm sure that Disney works from some very exact specifications.
This is actually a very studied problem in pedestrian-dominated areas such as stadiums, airports and theme parks. There is a breaking point when the numbers get so big that you simply have to haul people to/from the perimeter entrances. I'm sure that Disney works from some very exact specifications.
Having pedestrian only downtowns is not really relevant when it comes to having a pedestrian friendly environment, so I’m not sure why this is a relevant counterpoint.
Most people in downtown Toronto or Manhattan are not solely walking to work, but the walking environment is still pleasant.
Most people in downtown Toronto or Manhattan are not solely walking to work, but the walking environment is still pleasant.
Pedestrian traffic is by far the most space efficient method of transportation, so that's not a problem with pedestrian traffic, it's a problem with density in general.
Uh, firstly, have you heard of this invention called public transit. Or this other invention called a bike? Also, this comparison to crowds around stadiums is bizarre. Cars use up more space than pedestrians, so it is possible to commue by car, then it is possible to commute on foot - at least as far as crowding is concerned.
Did I say car? I said "by faster mechanical means". That would be bikes/busses/trains/helicopters/escalators and everything else mechanical as in mechanisms as in everything not-pedestrian, a big field.
Neither pedestrian crowding nor travel distance is an issue in walkable cities, because public transit and cycling is compatible with a walkable city. There is nothing difficult about it, there exist thousands of walkable cities.
Another concept you may learn about is „mixed used neighborhoods“. It turns out you dont have to separate out working and residential areas, this will reduce travel distances. A related concept is the „polycentric city“.
Another concept you may learn about is „mixed used neighborhoods“. It turns out you dont have to separate out working and residential areas, this will reduce travel distances. A related concept is the „polycentric city“.
> I spent some time last century living in Toronto, a moderately large North American city. The main street of the neighbourhood in which I lived was a former streetcar route crowded with small human-scale shops on the north side, and a church with a parking lot and some large office blocks on the south side. The north side was always crowded, the south side was always empty. It was obvious where people preferred to walk.
I'm in Sydney, AU - I've never been to Toronto, and know only that it's much further from the equator than Sydney is. Even in the mild climate of Sydney, I've noticed myself and others favouring the south sides of streets in winter here, simply because it receives more natural light & warmth.
For any given street, there's probably a handful of other candidate explanations for one side of a street being more favoured. It may well be an abundance of shops - if I want to amble, that would (all other factors aside) rate it higher. If I wanted to get somewhere, then I'd eschew a store-dense route, to avoid the myriad amblers that would slow me down.
I'm in Sydney, AU - I've never been to Toronto, and know only that it's much further from the equator than Sydney is. Even in the mild climate of Sydney, I've noticed myself and others favouring the south sides of streets in winter here, simply because it receives more natural light & warmth.
For any given street, there's probably a handful of other candidate explanations for one side of a street being more favoured. It may well be an abundance of shops - if I want to amble, that would (all other factors aside) rate it higher. If I wanted to get somewhere, then I'd eschew a store-dense route, to avoid the myriad amblers that would slow me down.
In San Francisco, many people avoid walking in areas with higher crime - which is not mentioned on this site. Sometimes higher crime areas are not as well lit, don't have enough visibility, or don't have clear egress in the case where someone might hassle you.
Also, while walking routes are not 1:1 with running routes, Strava has very good data on popularity of particular streets globally. Here's a link to the Boston area (you can navigate wherever from there) which has strong similarities to the map that the MIT site shows.
https://www.strava.com/heatmap#13.00/-71.12481/42.34039/hot/...
Also, while walking routes are not 1:1 with running routes, Strava has very good data on popularity of particular streets globally. Here's a link to the Boston area (you can navigate wherever from there) which has strong similarities to the map that the MIT site shows.
https://www.strava.com/heatmap#13.00/-71.12481/42.34039/hot/...
Egress goes both ways. Streets with no hiding places nor alleys to flee down tend to be safer.
Also, a street lit well in some pockets but not others ruins night vision and creates hiding places. A residential street with lights on at every door might look nice at night but may also be worse for safety. Except for the psychological deterrence of "people live here, are home, and care enough to leave the light on."
Also, a street lit well in some pockets but not others ruins night vision and creates hiding places. A residential street with lights on at every door might look nice at night but may also be worse for safety. Except for the psychological deterrence of "people live here, are home, and care enough to leave the light on."
I can't seem to find the paper, but there was a study conducted in my city that found that, beyond a certain point, more lighting makes people feel safer, but seems to also be associated with more crime.
As I recall, they didn't really figure out the reason for that, but the paper suggested one potential problem is that adding lights simultaneously ruins people's dark vision and creates more shadows to hide in. One other hypothesis I'd want to rule out before drawing any big conclusions is that law-abiding citizens aren't the only ones who know that people choose the more brightly lit streets when walking at night.
My own personal best guess is that, if there's any relationship, it's non-causative. I'm guessing that what muggers actually prefer is areas with low foot traffic, and it just happens to be that places with less foot traffic also tend to have fewer lights.
As I recall, they didn't really figure out the reason for that, but the paper suggested one potential problem is that adding lights simultaneously ruins people's dark vision and creates more shadows to hide in. One other hypothesis I'd want to rule out before drawing any big conclusions is that law-abiding citizens aren't the only ones who know that people choose the more brightly lit streets when walking at night.
My own personal best guess is that, if there's any relationship, it's non-causative. I'm guessing that what muggers actually prefer is areas with low foot traffic, and it just happens to be that places with less foot traffic also tend to have fewer lights.
Muggers need low traffic, but not no traffic. One neighborhood I lived in had so little traffic I felt perfectly safe. It was an area criminals went to flee after their crimes, not to commit crimes. Amusingly, I'd run into more film crews than any other sort of people out walking. The neighborhood made for a good scene background.
In contrast, the college student slum near my university had high foot traffic. From my biased sample, I estimated that 1/10 student residents of that neighborhood were mugged in a 4-year period.
In contrast, the college student slum near my university had high foot traffic. From my biased sample, I estimated that 1/10 student residents of that neighborhood were mugged in a 4-year period.
sadly I tend to avoid walking through parks at night for this reason, even though it ought to be a more pleasant (and often more direct) route. there's nothing good about crossing paths with a crowd after dusk where I live.
If you're referring to the tenderloin, there's a larger issue there with obstruction of sidewalks. I'm certainly not arguing these should be 'cleaned' or 'swept', though, just pointing out that 'crime' is rather incidental to the reasons why someone might avoid the area.
My first day in SF downtown was "oh cool, here is a bunch of free parking spots along the street" when I got to Tenderloin. I didn't see any crime but at the same time I started to avoid this neighborhood since then.
Urban crime is all about lack of eyes on the street. Well utilized People friendly environments will create safety. (Cf jane jacobs, death and life of American cities)
I wouldn't say it's all about eyes on the street. There are more dangerous and less dangerous neighborhood overall--especially if you're a confused-looking tourist. But I agree that a well-lit busy city avenue will tend to be safer than some deserted street.
I believe pickpockets prefer crowded, busy streets.
Interesting article... it does make me wonder if they're missing some key ingredient.
One example for me personally is the level of aggression in the locals. There are certain streets I avoid due to this aggressive behavior, and something like that wasn't even mentioned.
Perhaps there are other missing variables too.
edit: in case anyone was wondering, no, I'm not implying some kind of racist undertone here. I've walked through many diverse neighborhoods in many cities without any problem whatsoever.
By "aggression" I mean panhandling and other interruptions by people undergoing obvious psychosis with no sense of social norms.
The reason I stated this oddly is because there's a large tangent of people on HN who will attack you for inferring that some homeless people (yes, these psychotic people are generally homeless) are psychotic and aggressive. Perhaps they live in gated communities?
No matter what I do, these people are allowed to exist where I live, but I don't consider them part of my community at all.
One example for me personally is the level of aggression in the locals. There are certain streets I avoid due to this aggressive behavior, and something like that wasn't even mentioned.
Perhaps there are other missing variables too.
edit: in case anyone was wondering, no, I'm not implying some kind of racist undertone here. I've walked through many diverse neighborhoods in many cities without any problem whatsoever.
By "aggression" I mean panhandling and other interruptions by people undergoing obvious psychosis with no sense of social norms.
The reason I stated this oddly is because there's a large tangent of people on HN who will attack you for inferring that some homeless people (yes, these psychotic people are generally homeless) are psychotic and aggressive. Perhaps they live in gated communities?
No matter what I do, these people are allowed to exist where I live, but I don't consider them part of my community at all.
> By "aggression" I mean panhandling and other interruptions by people undergoing obvious psychosis with no sense of social norms.
I'd like to throw in interruptions by people who are completely sober but have something they want to sell. Going to get your coffee and having someone say "hey, let's have a chat really quick" then reply "wow, ignore me like I didn't just talk to you" when you ignore them is irritating as hell. In the pre-covid days people in my office would go to the Starbucks that was a half block further away just to avoid those people. Note: if a homeless person was this aggressive, the police would definitely get involved.
Also while calling it aggression is a bit of a stretch, I noticed the block that surrounds a couple of the busiest transit stations are noticeably less polite. Things like smaller personal space, more tolerance for cutting people off, less "excuse me" or "pardon me". It makes sense in the context, but if you are passing by it could be a hassle that you'll put a bit of effort into avoiding.
I'd like to throw in interruptions by people who are completely sober but have something they want to sell. Going to get your coffee and having someone say "hey, let's have a chat really quick" then reply "wow, ignore me like I didn't just talk to you" when you ignore them is irritating as hell. In the pre-covid days people in my office would go to the Starbucks that was a half block further away just to avoid those people. Note: if a homeless person was this aggressive, the police would definitely get involved.
Also while calling it aggression is a bit of a stretch, I noticed the block that surrounds a couple of the busiest transit stations are noticeably less polite. Things like smaller personal space, more tolerance for cutting people off, less "excuse me" or "pardon me". It makes sense in the context, but if you are passing by it could be a hassle that you'll put a bit of effort into avoiding.
I'm glad someone brought this up, because I honestly find these sorts of aggressive sidewalk salespeople to be much worse than any panhandler. I've had them walk directly into my path, forcing me to walk around them or stop and I think that level of obstruction is asinine. I'm kind of an anxious person and someone moving that aggressively to block my path sets off my fight or flight very badly. Reminds me of the behaviour of the perpetrators of beatings I took in school.
> I think that level of obstruction is asinine
It really is.
> I'm kind of an anxious person and someone moving that aggressively to block my path sets off my fight or flight very badly.
I really think that is a correct response. In a lot of cases, the sale comes closed to guaranteed once they get you into the conversation. They can lean into things like guilt, social etiquette, the your desire to look nice in order to make you feel like you have to buy in order to leave. That's why they choose sell by interrupting people on the streets instead of via other means.
It really is.
> I'm kind of an anxious person and someone moving that aggressively to block my path sets off my fight or flight very badly.
I really think that is a correct response. In a lot of cases, the sale comes closed to guaranteed once they get you into the conversation. They can lean into things like guilt, social etiquette, the your desire to look nice in order to make you feel like you have to buy in order to leave. That's why they choose sell by interrupting people on the streets instead of via other means.
Yes, thank you, these people are actually a bigger issue than panhandlers in my experience (though panhandlers are much more common in my area and they slipped my mind)
> the level of aggression in the locals
This is off-topic, but I can't help but notice how this is worded. I am having trouble articulating what bothers me about it. But it seems like you feel like you're "in the community, but not of it". There is an implicit distinction between you and your household, and the "locals". The "aggression" you reference is also a bit troubling because it is framed entirely with an external locus of control, which absolves you of any role.
Just my thoughts. I know this is irrelevant but I feel like it needs to be heard.
This is off-topic, but I can't help but notice how this is worded. I am having trouble articulating what bothers me about it. But it seems like you feel like you're "in the community, but not of it". There is an implicit distinction between you and your household, and the "locals". The "aggression" you reference is also a bit troubling because it is framed entirely with an external locus of control, which absolves you of any role.
Just my thoughts. I know this is irrelevant but I feel like it needs to be heard.
For what it's worth, I think you're reading way too much into what the poster said.
For me, "the locals" means nothing more than "the people who are habitually in that area". In my neighborhood, I am one of "the locals", other places I go, I'm perhaps not.
I took "aggression" to mean something like "proclivity to force a social engagement regardless of my desire to be part of it".
In New York City, that's sometimes panhandling, sometimes people with mental health issues, sometimes the guys with the CDs or the people who want to tell the whole car about their personal religious conversion while you're riding on the subway.
If my only role is "being there" then my only element of control is "not being there", which is sort of the poster's entire point.
For me, "the locals" means nothing more than "the people who are habitually in that area". In my neighborhood, I am one of "the locals", other places I go, I'm perhaps not.
I took "aggression" to mean something like "proclivity to force a social engagement regardless of my desire to be part of it".
In New York City, that's sometimes panhandling, sometimes people with mental health issues, sometimes the guys with the CDs or the people who want to tell the whole car about their personal religious conversion while you're riding on the subway.
If my only role is "being there" then my only element of control is "not being there", which is sort of the poster's entire point.
[deleted]
> If my only role is "being there" then my only element of control is "not being there", which is sort of the poster's entire point.
But of course it's never that simple, which is sort of my entire point.
But of course it's never that simple, which is sort of my entire point.
Not to be obtuse, but what is your point?
Obviously there exists some complex set of life circumstances, personal histories, elements of chance and so on that lead to there being some people who will interact in an insistent, even hostile, way with strangers on the streets.
In that both I and those people form part of the same economy, inhabit the same political reality, my actions are probably implicated in some unfathomably complex way. I have "a role".
To that extent: yes, it is not "that simple", in fact it's unknowably complex. But, in practical terms, what are you proposing?
Obviously there exists some complex set of life circumstances, personal histories, elements of chance and so on that lead to there being some people who will interact in an insistent, even hostile, way with strangers on the streets.
In that both I and those people form part of the same economy, inhabit the same political reality, my actions are probably implicated in some unfathomably complex way. I have "a role".
To that extent: yes, it is not "that simple", in fact it's unknowably complex. But, in practical terms, what are you proposing?
> But it seems like you feel like you're "in the community, but not of it". There is an implicit distinction between you and your household, and the "locals".
If we're talking about a larger city, for example Boston (the city focused on for this webpage), then there will undoubtedly be communities in that city to which you do not belong. I would wager that in nearly every city in the world, there are neighborhoods and communities which non-residents of those communities try to avoid walking through.
> The "aggression" you reference is also a bit troubling because it is framed entirely with an external locus of control, which absolves you of any role.
Honestly, what are you talking about? Are you insinuating that pedestrians frequently go into neighborhoods in which they don't live to start trouble?
If we're talking about a larger city, for example Boston (the city focused on for this webpage), then there will undoubtedly be communities in that city to which you do not belong. I would wager that in nearly every city in the world, there are neighborhoods and communities which non-residents of those communities try to avoid walking through.
> The "aggression" you reference is also a bit troubling because it is framed entirely with an external locus of control, which absolves you of any role.
Honestly, what are you talking about? Are you insinuating that pedestrians frequently go into neighborhoods in which they don't live to start trouble?
> If we're talking about a larger city, for example Boston (the city focused on for this webpage), then there will undoubtedly be communities in that city to which you do not belong.
And you think that talking about people who live in other neighborhoods like a colonist marching through the Congo is an appropriate way to treat fellow citizens?
> Are you insinuating that pedestrians frequently go into neighborhoods in which they don't live to start trouble?
Obviously not, and that seems to be a deliberately obtuse interpretation for the intention of muddling debate. The insinuation is that there are many reasons people may become "aggressive" and a lot of them involve someone else acting poorly. OP's framing does not allow for the cause of this "aggression" to be their actions. If someone was routinely speeding through my neighborhood in their car, for instance, I would be "aggressive" because I fear for the safety of my neighbors. The framing that OP uses strongly implies that they think they can do no wrong.
And you think that talking about people who live in other neighborhoods like a colonist marching through the Congo is an appropriate way to treat fellow citizens?
> Are you insinuating that pedestrians frequently go into neighborhoods in which they don't live to start trouble?
Obviously not, and that seems to be a deliberately obtuse interpretation for the intention of muddling debate. The insinuation is that there are many reasons people may become "aggressive" and a lot of them involve someone else acting poorly. OP's framing does not allow for the cause of this "aggression" to be their actions. If someone was routinely speeding through my neighborhood in their car, for instance, I would be "aggressive" because I fear for the safety of my neighbors. The framing that OP uses strongly implies that they think they can do no wrong.
> Obviously not, and that seems to be a deliberately obtuse interpretation for the intention of muddling debate. The insinuation is that there are many reasons people may become "aggressive" and a lot of them involve someone else acting poorly.
I've seen far more people acting aggressive to pedestrians without being provoked by the pedestrians because they're in a lot of internal distress (acting erratically, unkempt, possibly homeless) than I've seen pedestrians inciting "locals" to be aggressive back to them.
Walk down a street and past someone muttering that they're about to murder a bunch of people and you might not go back that way next time.
Sometimes "you were asking for it" isn't the explanation.
I've seen far more people acting aggressive to pedestrians without being provoked by the pedestrians because they're in a lot of internal distress (acting erratically, unkempt, possibly homeless) than I've seen pedestrians inciting "locals" to be aggressive back to them.
Walk down a street and past someone muttering that they're about to murder a bunch of people and you might not go back that way next time.
Sometimes "you were asking for it" isn't the explanation.
uoaei(2)
The world is full of streets where people who are not local or do not look like they are local are likely to be mugged, chased by gangs who regard it as their 'territory', regarded as suspicious on account of their ethnicity or crowded with extremely persistent vendors or beggars. It is sensible to avoid them.
Yes, it is also possible for 'locals' to be upset by unreasonable behaviour like loutish drunkenness or reasonable behaviour like wearing a rainbow T-shirt, but it's a bit rich to accuse others of being deliberately obtuse when you're bringing up dangerous driving as an example of why an OP's concerns about walking through certain areas of the city is likely to be his own fault.
Yes, it is also possible for 'locals' to be upset by unreasonable behaviour like loutish drunkenness or reasonable behaviour like wearing a rainbow T-shirt, but it's a bit rich to accuse others of being deliberately obtuse when you're bringing up dangerous driving as an example of why an OP's concerns about walking through certain areas of the city is likely to be his own fault.
you are extrapolating a lot here from the choice of a single, somewhat vague, word. the looks you receive from passersby can make it very clear that you are not welcome or at least not expected to be in that area. I'm not sure I would call it "aggressive", but certainly "uncomfortable" and to be avoided if possible. this observation is not unique to affluent white people.
sometimes people are downright aggressive if they feel you are trespassing in a place that isn't "yours". I had a somewhat mischievous teacher in high school who liked to take us out to lunch in less affluent neighborhoods. more than once he was asked "why did you bring those kids here?" or told outright "you don't belong here" by the regulars.
sometimes people are downright aggressive if they feel you are trespassing in a place that isn't "yours". I had a somewhat mischievous teacher in high school who liked to take us out to lunch in less affluent neighborhoods. more than once he was asked "why did you bring those kids here?" or told outright "you don't belong here" by the regulars.
The broader point is this: readers of such comments will extrapolate exactly in the manner dictated by the language used. Language matters, word choice matters, and it is incumbent upon civil participants in society to avoid drawing rhetorical lines like "local/not-local" and reducing forms of street-level interaction to "aggression." In my experience, those who speak in this and similar manners are forming narratives to reframe the event to re-orient culpability. Obviously that works better when you dehumanize someone who isn't there to defend themselves.
it seems that you are the only one who is making this extrapolation, but I'll bite.
> In my experience, those who speak in this and similar manners are forming narratives to reframe the event to re-orient culpability.
why would people do this? to what end? who is really "culpable" in your opinion? all I see in this thread is people recounting times they have felt unwelcome or unsafe somewhere. in response, they do nothing more extreme than to avoid that place in the future. what exactly is the problem here?
> In my experience, those who speak in this and similar manners are forming narratives to reframe the event to re-orient culpability.
why would people do this? to what end? who is really "culpable" in your opinion? all I see in this thread is people recounting times they have felt unwelcome or unsafe somewhere. in response, they do nothing more extreme than to avoid that place in the future. what exactly is the problem here?
> it seems that you are the only one who is making this extrapolation
Doesn't seem that way to me. Lots of activity in the up/downvotes. Not everyone with an opinion is here expressing it.
> why would people do this? to what end?
When people do bad or otherwise undignified things, they routinely construct a narrative that conveniently leaves those bad things out, or otherwise reframes the events to cast them in a better light when they later recount the story. I don't think many would find this a controversial idea. This idea has been formalized in psychology since at least Jung in the concept of the shadow.
Frequently, this includes additional language to further reinforce the narrative, such as dehumanizing or reductive language like I explained above.
The pattern I've noticed in my interactions with sheltered techie-types who are uncomfortable in big city neighborhoods reflects the language used in OP, i.e., their understanding of minority communities is largely informed by stereotypes developed by local news and one-dimensional TV depictions before moving to neighborhoods and getting a chance to see what it's really like. Instead they stay sheltered in their castle and don't talk to their neighbors, and are subsequently (correctly) labeled gentrifiers. The feeling of not fitting in exacerbates the impulse to apply these stereotypes and colors any subsequent interaction before it begins.
If OP does not fit this description, they've certainly inherited their language (thus, worldview) from those who do.
Doesn't seem that way to me. Lots of activity in the up/downvotes. Not everyone with an opinion is here expressing it.
> why would people do this? to what end?
When people do bad or otherwise undignified things, they routinely construct a narrative that conveniently leaves those bad things out, or otherwise reframes the events to cast them in a better light when they later recount the story. I don't think many would find this a controversial idea. This idea has been formalized in psychology since at least Jung in the concept of the shadow.
Frequently, this includes additional language to further reinforce the narrative, such as dehumanizing or reductive language like I explained above.
The pattern I've noticed in my interactions with sheltered techie-types who are uncomfortable in big city neighborhoods reflects the language used in OP, i.e., their understanding of minority communities is largely informed by stereotypes developed by local news and one-dimensional TV depictions before moving to neighborhoods and getting a chance to see what it's really like. Instead they stay sheltered in their castle and don't talk to their neighbors, and are subsequently (correctly) labeled gentrifiers. The feeling of not fitting in exacerbates the impulse to apply these stereotypes and colors any subsequent interaction before it begins.
If OP does not fit this description, they've certainly inherited their language (thus, worldview) from those who do.
Just fyi, I'm about as far from a sheltered techie type as they come... since 18, I've lived in shared room situations with strangers on Craigslist for most of my life, often in the cheapest and most unsafe neighborhoods.
I actually have plenty of experience in the big city, it's not like I'm someone who comes from the rich burbs and then acts disgusted by the people around.
If anything, I've only become more bitter and hardened over time by living in the city. I was much more empathetic before it happened for 10 years+ and before I was put in so many unsafe situations.
Again, I'm not even referring to minority neighborhoods, actually most of these people are white (though certainly not all).
I actually have plenty of experience in the big city, it's not like I'm someone who comes from the rich burbs and then acts disgusted by the people around.
If anything, I've only become more bitter and hardened over time by living in the city. I was much more empathetic before it happened for 10 years+ and before I was put in so many unsafe situations.
Again, I'm not even referring to minority neighborhoods, actually most of these people are white (though certainly not all).
Most of the "aggression" is just mugging attempts. "You're walking in here like you own the place", "what's with these glasses, think you're so smart", "you got any money, what if I find some" is stuff I've heard many times irl.
I edited my post if you're interested, I assure you that I don't do anything to agitate these people, and if I did, I'd deserve whatever came to me (probably a knife).
You assume the OP doesn’t refer to him/herself as a local. Have you considered it’s meant to be about how the article doesn’t distinguish between behavior of the locals in various regions?
> The "aggression" you reference is also a bit troubling because it is framed entirely with an external locus of control, which absolves you of any role.
You’ve clearly never experienced aggressive panhandling. Your only “role” is being present.
> The "aggression" you reference is also a bit troubling because it is framed entirely with an external locus of control, which absolves you of any role.
You’ve clearly never experienced aggressive panhandling. Your only “role” is being present.
> You assume the OP doesn’t refer to himself as a local.
You assume the OP is a "he," among many other things, such as:
> You’ve clearly never experienced aggressive panhandling.
Typically the approach of "scold motivated assumptions with unmotivated ones" does not engender support, because it shows that you do not comprehend the context in which this conversation operates.
You assume the OP is a "he," among many other things, such as:
> You’ve clearly never experienced aggressive panhandling.
Typically the approach of "scold motivated assumptions with unmotivated ones" does not engender support, because it shows that you do not comprehend the context in which this conversation operates.
> You assume the OP is a "he,"
Nope, no assumption. Just a gross mistake of failing to put the global match in there. Updated accordingly.
> because it shows that you do not comprehend the context in which this conversation operates.
Ah, insults and no content. I suppose trolling it is then.
The point is that if you spend any large amount of time in many US cities you will encounter aggressive panhandling and the only action on your behalf is your presence there.
There is a reason some communities vote to entirely ban panhandling, and it’s not because “racism”.
Nope, no assumption. Just a gross mistake of failing to put the global match in there. Updated accordingly.
> because it shows that you do not comprehend the context in which this conversation operates.
Ah, insults and no content. I suppose trolling it is then.
The point is that if you spend any large amount of time in many US cities you will encounter aggressive panhandling and the only action on your behalf is your presence there.
There is a reason some communities vote to entirely ban panhandling, and it’s not because “racism”.
I spend a lot of time in US cities. I live in one of them.
The reason some communities vote to entirely ban panhandling goes to the root of why people resort to panhandling. It's because there is no support structure to counteract the decades of systemic destruction of human dignity. The vote is to assuage middle- and upper-class sensibilities to avoid thinking about the systemic issues by resorting to "out of sight, out of mind."
There is a strong bias in the types of people who fall into this situation. If you do not consider that racism, you have missed approximately the last decade of discussion around the matter.
The reason some communities vote to entirely ban panhandling goes to the root of why people resort to panhandling. It's because there is no support structure to counteract the decades of systemic destruction of human dignity. The vote is to assuage middle- and upper-class sensibilities to avoid thinking about the systemic issues by resorting to "out of sight, out of mind."
There is a strong bias in the types of people who fall into this situation. If you do not consider that racism, you have missed approximately the last decade of discussion around the matter.
(From your now deleted first high-brow reply https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26029344)
> If you find this insulting, you may want to reconsider why.
I don’t consider it insulting. I consider it an attempt at an insult. If it’s not that, it’s just a lame attempt to construe a discussion participant’s level of cognition for no particular purpose.
> The reason some communities vote to entirely ban panhandling goes to the root of why people resort to panhandling. It's because there is no support structure to counteract the decades of systemic destruction of human dignity.
This ignores entire countries where it is not allowed despite having stronger social safety systems.
> There is a strong bias in the types of people who fall into this situation. If you do not consider that racism, you have missed approximately the last decade of discussion around the matter.
Well it’s not racism because many communities dominated by one race have a homeless population dominated by the same race and still choose to ban it.
Clutching at the crutch of racism accusations is just a method of dehumanizing people attempting to improve their community after countless failed attempts to solve homelessness.
> If you find this insulting, you may want to reconsider why.
I don’t consider it insulting. I consider it an attempt at an insult. If it’s not that, it’s just a lame attempt to construe a discussion participant’s level of cognition for no particular purpose.
> The reason some communities vote to entirely ban panhandling goes to the root of why people resort to panhandling. It's because there is no support structure to counteract the decades of systemic destruction of human dignity.
This ignores entire countries where it is not allowed despite having stronger social safety systems.
> There is a strong bias in the types of people who fall into this situation. If you do not consider that racism, you have missed approximately the last decade of discussion around the matter.
Well it’s not racism because many communities dominated by one race have a homeless population dominated by the same race and still choose to ban it.
Clutching at the crutch of racism accusations is just a method of dehumanizing people attempting to improve their community after countless failed attempts to solve homelessness.
> a lame attempt to construe a discussion participant’s level of cognition
...only if you conflate "do not" with "cannot" in order to further your victimization narrative.
> many communities
Weasel words like "many" with no follow-up providing evidence are useless here.
...only if you conflate "do not" with "cannot" in order to further your victimization narrative.
> many communities
Weasel words like "many" with no follow-up providing evidence are useless here.
> victimization narrative.
I don’t think you know what “victimization” means. I’m not claiming to be a victim. I’m claiming your attempts to dismiss comments with insults instead of logic is pretty lame.
“Clearly you don’t know what’s going on here so I’m not going to address anything.”
> Weasel words like "many" with no follow-up providing evidence are useless here.
Go to “legal restrictions” on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging if you would actually like to discuss these things you find so “curious”.
I don’t think you know what “victimization” means. I’m not claiming to be a victim. I’m claiming your attempts to dismiss comments with insults instead of logic is pretty lame.
“Clearly you don’t know what’s going on here so I’m not going to address anything.”
> Weasel words like "many" with no follow-up providing evidence are useless here.
Go to “legal restrictions” on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging if you would actually like to discuss these things you find so “curious”.
[deleted]
Someone replied with
> If you beat up someone for being "not of your community", you're scum.
but deleted it before I was able to reply. While I'm on this topic I would like to point out how this perpetuates the same issues by replying to it directly:
"Scum" is an interesting word choice. (Yes, that use of 'interesting' is a very loaded one.) But OP didn't say anything about "beating up," just "aggression." And they also didn't claim it's solely because they're "not of the community." There is a lot of obscured context here, but the invariant to notice is that folks who are generally antagonistic against those they perceive as lower classes will use this kind of reductive, dehumanizing language to describe their interactions.
> If you beat up someone for being "not of your community", you're scum.
but deleted it before I was able to reply. While I'm on this topic I would like to point out how this perpetuates the same issues by replying to it directly:
"Scum" is an interesting word choice. (Yes, that use of 'interesting' is a very loaded one.) But OP didn't say anything about "beating up," just "aggression." And they also didn't claim it's solely because they're "not of the community." There is a lot of obscured context here, but the invariant to notice is that folks who are generally antagonistic against those they perceive as lower classes will use this kind of reductive, dehumanizing language to describe their interactions.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There’s a major economic and racial discussion missing here... the huge gaps in the southern part of their map (east and west of warren st... roxbury and dorchester) are the poorest areas of boston and heavily segregated racially... I’d wager that this data isn’t actually representative of the population and skews heavily towards high income white people...
> No matter what I do, these people are allowed to exist where I live, but I don't consider them part of my community at all.
this makes me sad to hear. who would disallow them to exist? and how would that disallowing happen? how would things change if you did consider them part of your community? maybe your interactions would be different if your attitude and energy changed?
this makes me sad to hear. who would disallow them to exist? and how would that disallowing happen? how would things change if you did consider them part of your community? maybe your interactions would be different if your attitude and energy changed?
In many cities, they are bused out to become someone else's problem.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but many of these people are obviously extremely unhappy, and they show no sign of changing soon.
If I viewed them as part of my community, it would probably be like pouring money into a black hole. Heroin tolerance goes up very quickly, and the associated costs go up just as quickly.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but many of these people are obviously extremely unhappy, and they show no sign of changing soon.
If I viewed them as part of my community, it would probably be like pouring money into a black hole. Heroin tolerance goes up very quickly, and the associated costs go up just as quickly.
wow. these are human beings you are talking about, not animals. busing people out is incredibly dehumanizing, and is widely acknowledged as a violation of human rights. it destroys these peoples support networks and ability to receive aid.
if you are unable to give them money you can at least acknowledge their common humanity and treat them as a person, and not a problem to be fixed.
--edit-- HN is not letting me reply right now so to answer your question i'm putting it here: i live in the SF Bay Area, which is far more dense than Portland. I work with a lot of unhoused people. I volunteer to feed them, distribute blankets to them, and make an effort to let them see how people still care for them. Do some of them ramble incoherently? Sure, a few, but frankly, not much more than the average Fox news viewer.
if you are unable to give them money you can at least acknowledge their common humanity and treat them as a person, and not a problem to be fixed.
--edit-- HN is not letting me reply right now so to answer your question i'm putting it here: i live in the SF Bay Area, which is far more dense than Portland. I work with a lot of unhoused people. I volunteer to feed them, distribute blankets to them, and make an effort to let them see how people still care for them. Do some of them ramble incoherently? Sure, a few, but frankly, not much more than the average Fox news viewer.
I don't support busing them out, and actually, I used to acknowledge them and treat them as humans. Eventually, it became a large time sink, and not a pleasant one (give a mouse a muffin).
Out of curiosity, do you live in a large city? Try crossing the Burnside bridge in Portland, OR every day for months and get back to me.
Out of curiosity, do you live in a large city? Try crossing the Burnside bridge in Portland, OR every day for months and get back to me.
"Three main features characterize desirable streets: access to parks, nearby shops & businesses, and sidewalks & street furniture".
Really. I never would have guessed. Especially that last one. Really? People prefer to walk down a street with a path explicitly designed for humans instead of one that's designed entirely for cars?
Really. I never would have guessed. Especially that last one. Really? People prefer to walk down a street with a path explicitly designed for humans instead of one that's designed entirely for cars?
While it seems like a fatuous point, I think stating the obvious is a feature, not a bug, for research. Explicitly confirming common sense with data is a good thing.
Definitely. Very often “common sense” is an after the fact explanation for some other underlying issue.
I will also take a longer path if the street is heavily tree-lined.
And in this pandemic, I usually avoid walking near shops and businesses because there are more people. (That said, it kinda proves the point that those streets are more desirable, in general.)
And in this pandemic, I usually avoid walking near shops and businesses because there are more people. (That said, it kinda proves the point that those streets are more desirable, in general.)
While shops probably attract people, its even more the case that people attract shops. For example, many cities have areas close to the water with surprisingly few shops, even though people like being close to water. The water restricts how you can move in the area, so there are fewer ways that people can happen to pass by - meaning even if the location is beautiful, there won’t be a lot of people there. Adding more shops won’t bring more people, just more bankruptcies.
I can't help but feel like this is overthinking the reasons behind the actions. Human beings need variety in their life, fresh stimulus. Walking to the store taking different paths every now and then is a great way to do this. If anything, I think it would be more useful to measure undesirable streets — places people avoid on purpose. In my personal opinion, those would be ones by busy roadways, bad infrastructure etc. As shown by car-free regions in Madrid and other cities, people like being out and about even in the city, so long as it isn't made too uncomfortable by the man-made nuisances.
Personally, if I am out on business, I have always preferred busier streets when living in the city- more people means less opportunity to get mugged, unless a less busy street or park both looked safe and were more direct routes.
Safety, directness, and pleasant surroundings in that order. Since pleasure strolls / exercise don't really have a direction, I'm not really counting them here.
Safety, directness, and pleasant surroundings in that order. Since pleasure strolls / exercise don't really have a direction, I'm not really counting them here.
Is there a non-fancy version of this anywhere? My chromebook freezes whenever I try to scroll.
Page is jumping all around on me and barely comprehensible and all I can think is "Desirable Websites: where do people prefer to browse?" and the answer is not this =/
I had no technical problems with the site, but it really irritates me that I have to scroll down half a screen just to get to see the next bullet point. I closed it before reaching the end of the page.
I don't know if that particular website uses it, but you can usually turn on the "prefers-reduced-motion" flag to get rid of the animations in compatible websites.
Agreed. Feels bloated.
This feels like the internet equivalent of increasing the line spacing and font size because you don't have that much to say.
The point where I had to frantically scroll to have elements fade in horizontally is where I gave up. I thought the page was broken or I'd reached the end because I kept scrolling down with no vertical movement.
The point where I had to frantically scroll to have elements fade in horizontally is where I gave up. I thought the page was broken or I'd reached the end because I kept scrolling down with no vertical movement.
There is no consistent presentation of progress or organization. Is my scrolling doing anything? How much content is there? Does the content have a logical structure? Is this the end?
This is super interesting!
Also related: Desire Paths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path). Desire Paths are often shortcuts (people often optimize for nearest path) but sometimes people prefer a more scenic view, a less frequented route etc.
Also related: Desire Paths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path). Desire Paths are often shortcuts (people often optimize for nearest path) but sometimes people prefer a more scenic view, a less frequented route etc.
I discovered the concept of desire paths in college and found it very interesting at the time. it flips the narrative of "these inconsiderate kids keep walking on the grass!" to "these landscape architects failed to anticipate how students would use the space where they live and work".
If you ever need to find a desire path, for whatever reason, the first place to go is any college campus/quad.
Every corner is cut and all open spaces are crisscrossed with paths.
I remember seeing photos of some university - I can't remember where - that actually ripped up the old paths and paved over the desire paths, to great success.
Every corner is cut and all open spaces are crisscrossed with paths.
I remember seeing photos of some university - I can't remember where - that actually ripped up the old paths and paved over the desire paths, to great success.
Ohio State is one such example:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DesirePath/comments/8nihbj/the_oval...
https://www.reddit.com/r/DesirePath/comments/8nihbj/the_oval...
> I remember seeing photos of some university - I can't remember where - that actually ripped up the old paths and paved over the desire paths, to great success.
And when people do this: it makes the path a bit jarring since you intuitively know it's been designed that way for maximum efficiency and you are being 'played' in this subtle way.
And when people do this: it makes the path a bit jarring since you intuitively know it's been designed that way for maximum efficiency and you are being 'played' in this subtle way.
Walking in NYC is the art of picking the most pleasant path. 10st across the villages is more pleasant than one block south or north, Henry St allows twice the rate of speed of walking on Canal.
One of the companies that graduated from the Urban-X accelerator (BMW+VC firm) in my cohort was numina, they create a technology/dev tools for understanding how people use streets. I think it's an awesome company. Their blog has some interesting stuff and is worth digging through if you're interested in urban ecology: https://numina.co/blog/ (particularly interesting to the HN crew: https://numina.co/announcing-numina-api-sandbox/)
These results seem selective and flawed to me.
For one, the videos keep stopping and pointing out trees/greenery on the "desired" path, but ignore trees on the "fastest" path.
Also, the route along Marlborough Street shows walking on a street versus walking down an alleyway. The "detour" is a half block on either side of the route. I live in Boston and wouldn't even consider those alleys to be streets - they only exist for garbage trucks and parking for the people who live in those buildings.
For one, the videos keep stopping and pointing out trees/greenery on the "desired" path, but ignore trees on the "fastest" path.
Also, the route along Marlborough Street shows walking on a street versus walking down an alleyway. The "detour" is a half block on either side of the route. I live in Boston and wouldn't even consider those alleys to be streets - they only exist for garbage trucks and parking for the people who live in those buildings.
Jeff Speck has written a great book called "Walkable City." I have nothing to do with city planning, but I found it super-interesting.
https://www.amazon.com/Walkable-City-Downtown-Save-America/d...
https://www.amazon.com/Walkable-City-Downtown-Save-America/d...
+1 for Walkable City! For everyone saying that the conclusions in the post are obvious, it apparently wasn't obvious enough that in the US, many cities are built for cars and not people.
Another good book is 'Happy City' although I liked Walkable City more.
https://www.amazon.com/Happy-City-Transforming-Through-Desig...
Another good book is 'Happy City' although I liked Walkable City more.
https://www.amazon.com/Happy-City-Transforming-Through-Desig...
Speck has a somewhat contrarian take to urban design that's really fun, promoting things like street parking and 4-way stops.
He has a couple talks he gives, one of which he's given at TED.
He has a couple talks he gives, one of which he's given at TED.
The example routes they give don't seem like realistic comparisons - in most of them, the shortest route doesn't really have a safe sidewalk to walk on. They're just not practical options, and in some cases I doubt they're legal for pedestrians.
Jan Gehl is all over this. "How to Study Public Life" is particularly good. People interested in a complex understanding of streets and public spaces will want to check him out.
Sadly the Gehl institute shut down it's public life/how cities work initiatives with the departure of Shin-pei Tsay.
Argh, I wish the videos of the routes were pausable...
Super timely as I'm on day two of the National Association of Realtors Green certification course, where aspects of walkability is one of the key topics. This "article" is really nifty for giving consumers a "live" prospective on a topic we're hearing a lot of from buyers. Neat to see the world slowly turning away from car-dependent.
This would be so much cooler if it wasn't designed around the mousewheel.
People in cities optimize for safety when traveling on foot. America is an interesting place.
Would be interesting to see how may people inadvertently employ Dijkstra's Algorithm on their runs/walks https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/dijkstras-shortest-path-al...
The same thing could be seen in the downtown core. Developers had torn down a quarter mile of the west side of the main shopping street and build a huge indoor shopping mall with virtually no street engagement except for a parking lot entrance midway. The east side of the street maintained its human-scale former streetcar-street landscape. Pedestrians would crowd both sides of the street above and below the mall, but only the east side in the stretch with the mall. It was obvious where people preferred to walk.
It's about human scale and human engagement. If you want to attract people, make it for them. Not for cars, not for architect's egos, not for political idiology. It's really just that simple.