The myth of revealed preference for suburbs • Hacker News Board

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#141

Post by kraigie » Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 2:58 PM UTC

kraigie wrote: post #132

IWeldMelons wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you saying "no space for cars"? You need to build multistory and underground garages here and there and you are all set.

Because that is a fundamental point that seems to often be missed in density discussions. Cars are great for low density areas and appealing at high density areas where as mass transit is great at high density but awful at low.density this why park and ride stations outside the city are a thing. Even if you could build miltistory underground car parks you still need roadway space. German narrow gauge trams quite happ…

Terrible not appealing, a synonym was autocorrected

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#142

Post by bitwize » Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 8:53 PM UTC

mrep wrote: post #139

matchbok wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in DC and experience exactly 0 of any of that. Your imagination of a "city" seems to be based entirely on the Mission district of SF. I would suggest travel.

I've seen all of that in every city in the US I have been to. That does not surprise me whatsoever about Washington DC though because Washington DC is a city dedicated to running the most powerful government in the world. I doubt any city has as tight of security as Washington DC.

DC actually has legendarily high crime rates, in the 90s being called the "murder capital of the United States". Crime has decreased since then but is still about three times the national average.

Government sites and government persons enjoy tight security. The rest of the city... Not so much.

Re: The myth of revealed preference for suburbs

#143

Post by iamnothere » Thu, Jul 05, 2018, 2:36 PM UTC

rhapsodic wrote: post #104

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fine with people making different lifestyle choices than me. I just want them to: 1. Not outlaw my preferred lifestyle choices. The vast majority of the country makes it illegal to build walkable urban neighborhoods. 2. Don't make me pay for your lifestyle choices. Car use is heavily subsidized in the US via road and parking infrastructure, laws that require private citizens to build parking at their own expense…

This is how democracies work. You don't always get what you want. Sorry to break it to you.

This is sort of an ironic response, given your initial post.

"Live and let live" has to go both ways, or the party getting the short end of the stick won't put up with the arrangement for long.