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

91–100 of 576 posts

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

#91

Post by bombcar »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #31
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-m…

Walkable towns abound in the US. They’re all what most would consider “rural” but a town that’s not even two miles wide can’t help but be walkable.

But people don’t want them, they prefer the suburbs or the city - the suburbs often because it’s near the jobs in the city and yet still has some of the spacing they want.

One solution is to stop building suburbs as they were in the 50s and build them as many small towns even if butted up against each other. Even the worst suburbs have shopping areas, etc, that could be spread out and made accessible.

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

#92

Post by wszfahwbwbaha »

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.

No post body was provided.

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

#93

Post by shuckles »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #34
woopwoop wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You’re comparing incomparable values. San Jose house prices are high because you can’t amortize the land costs. Square foot by square foot, Manhattan land is far more expensive than San Jose. Chicago land may appear cheaper, but it’s only because they have higher taxes on it than San Jose.

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

#95

Post by mtalantikite »

Xeoncross wrote: post #60
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…

Keep in mind that the US is only about 10% smaller than all of Europe combined. While I would love more walking/biking friendly cities, what about all the rural areas? It would take millions and millions of buses or train connections to get to all the places I drive and would still be more of a hassle than just driving there myself plus I couldn't pick the scenic routes. People in major cities have different needs th…

I don't think anyone is advocating that rural America, or even most of exurban America, should be accessible by public transit. It's just that we literally only have one city in the entire United States that has a massive subway and bus system that operates 24 hours, which allows you to live without a car.

It'd be great to have more cities as dense as NYC in this country.

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

#96

Post by umvi »

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've lived in highly walkable, pro-transit areas. It does have benefits, don't get me wrong. The flip side of the coin is that those areas usually have high population density. That comes with a lot of its own cons - noise pollution, air pollution, annoying neighbors you can hear and smell through your walls, etc. To avoid these cons, a lot of Americans want their own house on their own property and doing that means moving to a lower population density area which means less walkability, less transit, more cars.

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

#97

Post by jandrewrogers »

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.

30% is 100 million Americans. Also, a passport was not required to travel in North America (not sure if that is still the case). I traveled throughout Mexico and Canada before ever having a passport, for example.

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

#98

Post by bombcar »

mrpopo wrote: post #67
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 want what they have been told to be desirable. No offense to free thinkers out there, but our mind is mostly shaped by our experiences in society.

We’re also very good at demanding small cars and walkable cities while buying massive SUVs and moving to the suburbs.

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

#99

Post by tristor »

twblalock wrote: post #13
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.

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.

I fall into this boat. I lived abroad for many years, did the digital nomad thing, have been really all over the world. I love walkability and have looked for it here in the US as a driving basis for housing selection. All that said, I absolutely will not share walls with someone else. I used to work nights, and sleep in the day, and I'm still a night owl. It is untenable to me to have to deal with complaints because I am watching Netflix at 9:30PM, or to have to have any shared systems which I am now limited away from being able to fix myself.

On the flipside, I don't want a huge place to live, so I am actively trying to find (or build) a small (less than 1800sqft) narrow (3 stories, like a detached townhouse) house that is extremely ecological (passive house standards) in a walkable area. When I considered permanently moving to Europe, places like this were actually not horribly uncommon, although they weren't as common as apartment blocks. In the US, places like this are near impossible to find because most houses are built by "production builders" who optimize for the largest square footage possible on a lot space allowed by local code to increase selling price, and do it as the lowest cost (meets code, maybe, basically same as getting a C grade).

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

#100

Post by chrisco255 »

hi41 wrote: post #16

Our homes are also designed in way that causes alienation from family members. Many rooms have TV and the seating is arranged in such a way that we can compulsively watch to dull our anxiety instead of having meaningful conversations with wife and kids. This is the default and without everyone’s okay in the family it’s hard to change this.

The seating arrangement in a house is entirely up to you. Hard to believe, but there's not even a hard government-mandated requirement on where your TV is positioned or fee if you forego it. At any rate, most homes have far more flexibility in seating arrangements and remodeling possibilities than your average apartment does. They also tend to have more outdoor seating and arrangements that make it easier for social activities. The garage, too, if properly arranged as a workshop or craft center, can also be a great way to encourage social activity. One can even add a basketball hoop in the driveway, or cornhole in the back yard for additional possibilities.
Post reply on HN