Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 576 posts

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#31

Post by matthewdgreen »

twblalock wrote: post #6

Most Americans want it to be that way, and that’s why it is that way. Zoning laws didn’t push people into a car lifestyle. Americans created those zoning laws because they like the car lifestyle and want to perpetuate it. The same is true for suburban zoning in general. People have not been tricked into this: this is what they want.

I think most Americans would like to have the conveniences of a walkable area and the space/affordability advantages of a suburb. Some parts of the world accomplish this by building many walkable towns and neighborhoods that people can live in. For some reason in much of the US we give people a binary choice of living in a small number of extremely expensive, dense cities -- or living in sidewalkless suburban strip-mall hell with a massive commute. I don't think any of this precisely "what people want", really: most folks are just given a very small menu to choose from.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#32

Post by gernb »

kodah wrote: post #10
JKCalhoun wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too would like the car lifestyle ... from 1950. Sadly, we have created a monster. I suspect many Americans now don't even know what a community without cars would look like, that it could even work at all.

The average American likely doesn't want a life without cars. That seems to be an HN obsession seemingly (my perception) fueled by people who have lived and stayed in very dense urban areas. Creating larger spaces that aren't made for cars is great, but people will still need long-range individual transportation.

That's fine. They just need to start paying for their externities and stop relying on being subsidized by the dense urban areas.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#33

Post by throwaway0a5e »

woopwoop wrote: post #20
twblalock wrote: post #6

Most Americans want it to be that way, and that’s why it is that way. Zoning laws didn’t push people into a car lifestyle. Americans created those zoning laws because they like the car lifestyle and want to perpetuate it. The same is true for suburban zoning in general. People have not been tricked into this: this is what they want.

If this were true, I'd think Manhattan apartments would be cheap.

Manhattan apartments are subject to a lot of the same price forces as commercial equipment. Their cost reflects the ready access to money making opportunties.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#34

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

woopwoop wrote: post #20
twblalock wrote: post #6

Most Americans want it to be that way, and that’s why it is that way. Zoning laws didn’t push people into a car lifestyle. Americans created those zoning laws because they like the car lifestyle and want to perpetuate it. The same is true for suburban zoning in general. People have not been tricked into this: this is what they want.

If this were true, I'd think Manhattan apartments would be cheap.

They would be if there wasn't so much money to be made in Manhattan.

The price of Manhattan apartments has almost nothing to do with how desirable it is - other than the fact that desirability is largely a function of the financial opportunities there.

Park City, Utah is expensive and nothing like Manhattan - so is Malibu and Ketchum, Idaho.

San Jose is a large city and much more expensive than NYC (in terms of house prices). Outside of downtown and a few neighborhoods nearby, it's mostly a car-hell.

Los Angeles isn't far behind in terms of prices - it's the second largest city in the US - and the majority of it is less walkable than halfway decent suburbs.

On the flip side, Chicago is mostly walkable and bikable - yet it's substantially cheaper. Does that mean people don't want that? I doubt it.

You can find plenty of counter-examples based on price and population and trying to extrapolate what people want.

People like a lot of different things. Looking at one desirable place isn't going to tell you much.

If you can make an argument that Manhattan has so much financial opportunity BECAUSE it's walkable, bikable, mass-transitable - I'm listening. But keep Chicago in mind. Because it has all of those things - is the second most densely populated city and the third most populous - yet it's basically average price for the country - which makes sense, because it also has average wages and high property taxes...

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#35

Post by sidlls »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #8
twblalock wrote: post #6

Most Americans want it to be that way, and that’s why it is that way. Zoning laws didn’t push people into a car lifestyle. Americans created those zoning laws because they like the car lifestyle and want to perpetuate it. The same is true for suburban zoning in general. People have not been tricked into this: this is what they want.

Most people don't influence zoning policy or understand it at all.

True but not quite accurate. Locals influence zoning laws when they speak at city/town council meetings and go door to door trying to influence or get the support of their neighbors for them. It’s not “most” voters: but only in the sense that that is true for all public policy. Zoning isn’t special.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#36

Post by falcolas »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #7
twblalock wrote: post #6

Most Americans want it to be that way, and that’s why it is that way. Zoning laws didn’t push people into a car lifestyle. Americans created those zoning laws because they like the car lifestyle and want to perpetuate it. The same is true for suburban zoning in general. People have not been tricked into this: this is what they want.

I too would like the car lifestyle ... from 1950. Sadly, we have created a monster. I suspect many Americans now don't even know what a community without cars would look like, that it could even work at all.

Frankly, I'm not sure it would work. The population of the US is more than double what it was in 1950. I personally don't want to live in a dense population area - it's overwhelming, panic inducing, yet still somehow lonely.

So what would a car-less community I could tolerate look like? Probably a lot like it does right now, just with more commercial entities within a mile or two of my home. It would also be a lot harder for me to access bigger commercial entities (like Walmart, Target, et.al.) since it would involve public transit that is about an hour and a half away (it's 10m by car, fwiw) in a higher density (and cost) city.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#37

Post by ErikVandeWater »

twblalock wrote: post #19
ErikVandeWater wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't influence zoning policy or understand it at all.

If that was true, then NIMBYism would have no political force — but it clearly does.

It doesn't take a majority to enforce NIMBYism. Just a small, very politically active group.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#38

Post by mminer237 »

kodah wrote: post #10
JKCalhoun wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too would like the car lifestyle ... from 1950. Sadly, we have created a monster. I suspect many Americans now don't even know what a community without cars would look like, that it could even work at all.

The average American likely doesn't want a life without cars. That seems to be an HN obsession seemingly (my perception) fueled by people who have lived and stayed in very dense urban areas. Creating larger spaces that aren't made for cars is great, but people will still need long-range individual transportation.

I think it's because the young people online are much more drawn to the active, exciting urban lifestyle than the average American. The average American would much rather have the safety, quiet, and just space that comes with suburban living. People want yards to play with their kids, and that sort of spread-out living just necessitates cars. Housing prices aren't high because of cars. Housing prices are high because people want their own personal space.

Nobody's going to build a rail system with a thousand subway stations connecting every neighborhood in a US metro area. That would cost like a trillion dollars, plus maintenance. It's just not feasible to cater good public transport to people living that spread out. And no one wants to walk miles to a less-dense rail system or take some slow bus route.

And outside of major cities, I've never heard of someone complain about cars. Most people are perfectly happy with cars. Sure they might think trains are cool, but they wouldn't want to move inward for it or pay whatever cost would be necessary for trains to come outward.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#39

Post by jaywalk »

Invictus0 wrote: post #28
dont__panic wrote: post #22

I've seen so much anti-car, pro-walkability, pro-transit, pro-bikeability sentiment online recently. I really hope this is proof of the younger generations -- Millenials, Zoomers, and younger folks even -- waking up to the idea that the USA in particular has become a toxic environment thanks to cars. WFH was a big wakeup call, I think -- once you step away from the commute for a year or two, trying to sit in traffic…

I honestly think that most Americans have not traveled enough to realize there is a better way. Only 30% of Americans even have a passport.

I've traveled to plenty of cities where many/most people don't own cars, in the US and Europe. I still have zero desire to live in such a city.

Re: Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection

#40

Post by ryukafalz »

kiba wrote: post #23
twblalock wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a lot of Americans who are well-travelled and have seen world-class transit in Europe and Asia, and most of them still choose to live in suburbs. The average American wants to live in a detached house that they own. This does not lead to dense cities. It leads to sprawl, which is what we got because it’s what we want.

Our choices are limited by options available to us.

Yup. And the options available to us have been limited by decades of zoning policy encouraging single-family homes only.

My girlfriend and I are about to move to the suburbs to be closer to her family, but it’s to an inner-ring suburb with excellent transit back into the city. There are maybe two towns for this in the area that aren’t outrageously priced, and even those two are above average.

See also, “The myth of revealed preference for suburbs”: https://cityobservatory.org/the-myth-of-revealed-preference-...

Post reply on HN