Too many Americans live in places built for cars – not for human connection • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by dont__panic » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

scottLobster wrote: post #89

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…

So as a two car millennial American family that makes regular trips into our city center, we never use our cars going into the city. It's just stressful, streets are narrow, parking's expensive and car-jacking and vandalism are more likely. Just makes more sense to take the bus, cheaper too when you count the cost of parking. I also like having places to walk to from my house. That said, I like having my own house wi…

Well said. I do something similar -- I live someplace with a bit more breathing room that's bike friendly and walk friendly for some basic things, and I never take my car into any city center.

> Make city centers less car friendly and denser to discourage car use, improve walking infrastructure in the suburbs (more sidewalks/bike trails).

To put it a bit more concretely: Remove street parking in cities. Expand sidewalks. Build more public transit and bike infrastructure. Create light rail with parking lots outside of cities so you can get in without a car. Let people use cars as before in rural middle-of-nowhere america, and mostly the same in the suburbs (lower speed limits and build more sidewalks and connecting paths, so you can walk between neighborhoods).

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

#102

Post by eagleinparadise » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

datadata wrote: post #53

ylhert wrote: post #9

The car has done so much damage to our world and most people are completely blind to it. Obesity, climate change, isolation/loneliness, excess deaths/injuries from collisions, out of control housing costs, can all be tied back in a major way to car centric society. And yet people will defend their car and the "convenience" of it like their life depends on it, and force it down the throats of everyone around them. Bog…

How would you tie housing costs to cars?

Subterranean parking costs $40-70k per stall

A developer can only build if they can achieve a 5-6% return on total costs

So 5% of $50k = $2,500 of income, or assuming 30% expenses, $2,500 / 70% margin = $3,500 of income needed per stall per year, or almost $300 per month per stall of underground parking provided

Surface parking is less expensive, like $10-20k/stall but you get the point.

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

#103

Post by mantas » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

xsmasher wrote: post #65

falcolas wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right - I do not want to live in dense cities. I did it for years, and hated it. I was happy when I was able to move out into a detached home where I can use speakers and not have to worry about a neighbor getting angry. It's only one neighbor out of the 6 I would share separating walls with, but one is all it takes.

If you could live in a detached home but the next block over had a restaurant or two and a small grocery, wouldn't that be pleasant? Zoning that allows ONLY single-family detached housing, and no retail or business, forces car-dependency. "Detached home or high-rise apartment in a city" is a false dichotomy.

As living in such place.. It's still „oh let's drive to bigger shop or THAT butcher this time“. Or „other“ restaurant.

And people living downtown still do the same - driving to same big malls in outskirts, restaurants in other towns etc. The funniest case is when people live downtown and drive to non-downtown workplaces :)

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

#104

Post by wszfahwbwbaha » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

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.

Yep. I love cars. Left NYC so i could get one.

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

#105

Post by pier25 » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

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…

r/fuckcars has seen a lot of growth in the past year or so:

https://subredditstats.com/r/fuckcars

https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/

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

#106

Post by ryukafalz » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

itsoktocry wrote: post #83

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…

> Selfishly, I really want the USA to bring city centers back to livable levels by banning most cars and redesigning them for humans. I bet if this happened you'd be living in a downtown that's physically walkable, but there's no business left to walk to.

This has been tried several times in cities and by and large it seems to be profitable for the businesses.

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

#107

Post by woopwoop » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:35 PM UTC

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…

Manhattan does not sit atop some massive pile of natural resources. Opportunity is great there exactly because there are so many people. Network effects are large. By the way, I do not think New York is expensive because it is desirable. It is expensive because it is desirable, there aren't enough places to live, and they aren't building more because of regulations. But it would not be expensive if no one wanted to live there.

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

#108

Post by bombcar » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:35 PM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #17

Sir_Son_Son wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could we forget the time the American public bought up their street cars and retired them?

The streetcar “conspiracy” is a tired old cliche. Americans wanted cars. They would have saved the streetcars if they had valued them as highly as they valued cars.

Busses are better than streetcars in every conceivable way except “poors actually use busses”.

So novelty streetcars are much more desirable than busses.

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

#109

Post by xhkkffbf » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:35 PM UTC

dont__panic wrote: post #82

xhkkffbf wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I generally like the idea of city centers, I think that this kind of anti-car stuff comes off like wild-eyed propaganda. For instance, the title suggests that the places were built for cars alone, kind of like the garage where Jay Leno keeps his collection. No. The suburbs were built for people driving cars. Not just cars. People getting rides in cars, avoiding weather, sitting comfortably, transporting the han…

I don't think car haters deny that cars can be useful, particularly in the environment we've constructed here in the USA. Hell, I own (half of) a car, because I want to visit family and friends who live a couple of hours away, and there's no train or even bus that could bring me to them. > The suburbs were built for people driving cars. Not just cars. People getting rides in cars, avoiding weather, sitting comfortabl…

No. You're missing my point. Those giant four lane roads were built for cars AND people moving together. The people are a big part of the equation. All of them are going some place. Some might be going to yoga. Some to church. Some to work. Some to the hospital. Etc. Yes, some might be doing something completely worthless and bad for society too, but, in general, people are the ones using the roads. The cars are only vehicles.

There's a slow movement back to urban environments, in part, because people understand the tradeoffs. But it comes off as foolish to pretend that these suburbs and four lane roads were imposed by some distant, evil presence. No. They were created by city planners trained by the best universities. They were created by progressive folks who wanted to build a nice place for people to live. This is what people wanted-- and many still want it in some form or another.

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

#110

Post by cycomanic » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:35 PM UTC

mminer237 wrote: post #38

kodah wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

While all that might be true, it is also true that hardly anyone would be willing to cover the true cost of living in rural areas far away from things. In pretty much every country I'm aware of the urban population is strongly subsidising the rural. And that is only covering first order cost (just look at the massive subsidies to get broadband to rural communities), if we would put prizes on second order cost like pollution, CO2... rural living would become unpopular very quickly (the reality already is that there is a massive move into the cities not the other way around).