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

151–160 of 576 posts

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

#151

Post by anovikov »

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 can relate to this! I lived parts of my life in car-only and walkable places. I so prefer walkability!

But, it has downsides.

Walkability, in a rich country, means insane real estate prices (in a poor country people don't have enough disposable income after food, clothing etc to create an auction effect).

In a poor country on the other hand, it means crime. In rich country even poor people have cars so crime is more equally distributed, but in poor countries, living in a place where jobs and shipping is unreachable on foot, you are also shielded from almost all crime, but in a poor country all walkable places are dangerous.

In other words, walkable places are only good if you are rich and live in a rich country.

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

#152

Post by ryukafalz »

dionidium wrote: post #59
kiba wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I check, these 'dense' urban area aren't exactly great for anybody but cars.

As a former resident of Manhattan, this is where I'm most resentful about car supremacy. I truly don't care that there exist car-centric suburbs. Anybody who lives there knows exactly what they're signing up for. What's insane to me is that we allow cars to dominate even our most urban spaces. When I would walk to work through Midtown, my senses were practically assaulted by automobiles. Honking, speeding, stereos bl…

Yup, I relate to this so much as someone currently living in Philly. We have basically the same issue even in Center City.

Cities aren’t loud, cars are loud: https://youtu.be/CTV-wwszGw8

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

#153

Post by dont__panic »

badpun wrote: post #134
jimmaswell wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work from home. I'd still rather drive most of the time than rely on transit and live anywhere more dense. E-biking is nice and I do it for exercise often, but I wouldn't want to do it in the snow or rain, even with perfect separate bike lanes, no matter how much Netherlanders insist it's no big deal. My car has a comfortable seat, good sound system, a lot of my stuff in it, climate control, and no drug addicts acc…

> I work from home. I'd still rather drive most of the time than rely on transit and live anywhere more dense. E-biking is nice and I do it for exercise often, but I wouldn't want to do it in the snow or rain, even with perfect separate bike lanes, no matter how much Netherlanders insist it's no big deal. Yep. Not to mention, biking excludes a lot of people and is pretty ableist to be honest. I for one get sick very…

Recumbent bikes, e-bikes, and other alternatives (https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/who-else-benef...) make "bike infrastructure" accessible to pretty much anyone. Considering the fact that it's impossible to live in the USA outside of a nursing home if you lose your ability to drive due to old age... I'm not sure accessibility is a great argument for car-centric infrastructure.

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

#154

Post by arrosenberg »

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…

We shouldn’t spend a dime updating suburbs unless it is to transform them into small towns with an actual main street. The design of the average suburb is impossibly inefficient, and the tax base rarely supports the cost of maintaining infrastructure.

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

#155

Post by atwood22 »

dont__panic wrote: post #30
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 Americans don't have a choice. Why are cars and phones giant these days? Is it because nobody wants smaller ones, or because perverse market incentives have distorted offerings in a chase for product growth? Why is the USA unbearably car centric? Is it because nobody wants to get around any other way, or because perverse market incentives have distorted the world around us in a chase for GDP growth? Some people…

> Why are cars and phones giant these days? Is it because nobody wants smaller ones, or because perverse market incentives have distorted offerings in a chase for product growth?

Do you have kids? If you did, you’d know that many people want bigger cars. I drive one of the smallest cars you can buy in the U.S. Now that I have a kid, I’m going to buy a big SUV. Kids require a lot of stuff. Taking them on public transport is a huge pain. Even if you don’t have kids, I’m sure you’ve been annoyed by a stroller on the subway.

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

#156

Post by JoeAltmaier »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #57
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…

One of the hardest parts about buying a home, apart from all the stuff that isnt fun about buying a home, is finding somewhere that is walkable to... anything. I've rented my whole life and spent my entire adult life in cities. The idea of having to get in the car to get milk or something from the corner store, or have to drive to ANY restaurant, or not have some type of walking/running path within a few blocks of my…

Town around 50000 is a good bet then. If you can work remotely, find a college town and live outside the center, about a mile. You can bike to anything, take the bus, or just walk.

I did this. I have 100 restaurants, too many bars to count, music and theatre (three!) and festivals and arts within trivial distances. No car needed.

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

#157

Post by dixie_land »

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…

I'd take it further and argue city centers should not be for residential use to begin. Cities can be built like a huge huge shopping mall, you park outside and do your work, enjoy your shopping etc, you don't have to live there.

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

#158

Post by falcolas »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #57
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…

One of the hardest parts about buying a home, apart from all the stuff that isnt fun about buying a home, is finding somewhere that is walkable to... anything. I've rented my whole life and spent my entire adult life in cities. The idea of having to get in the car to get milk or something from the corner store, or have to drive to ANY restaurant, or not have some type of walking/running path within a few blocks of my…

> One of the hardest parts about buying a home, apart from all the stuff that isnt fun about buying a home, is finding somewhere that is walkable to... anything.

That's because if you want an individual home, you're giving up the customer density required to make those amenities viable. In a world with the internet, at-home delivery, and yes, cars, it's simply not economically viable to create a grocery store that only caters to 100ish families.

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

#159

Post by TheBigSalad »

dont__panic wrote: post #113
jgwil2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd rather not learn a whole new language and leave my family and friends so far behind You could live in New York, Boston, DC, Chicago, or other dense cities with decent transit options without leaving the US entirely. It is certainly not impossible to live in the US without a car. EDIT: not really sure why this is downvoted. Just taking OP's statement that they would prefer not to uproot their whole life at face…

I have lived in multiple major US cities without a car. In NYC it's feasible, but impossible to visit family or friends who live in car-centric places. In most other cities you feel like a distant second-or-third class citizen. Swimming upstream gets tiring after a while.

The problem is that it's too hard to visit family and friends. The solution is to move to a different country where you don't know anyone or even speak the language?

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

#160

Post by lr4444lr »

Author compares post college life to his residential campus and concludes that walkability promotes human connection? That's... ...an opinion, to put it charitably. Cities have been known for fostering alienation and dehumanization long before the invention of the automobile. People who move out to my car-necessitating suburb routinely cite the enhanced feeling of community by having a small town feel centered around the school district, local businesses, churches, and responsive civic organizations that make a difference. I think the author needs to get out of his bubble.
Post reply on HN