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

#261

Post by sillystuff » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:33 PM UTC

dont__panic wrote: post #41

Invictus0 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most of my friends -- a spread of PhDs, teachers, well-off tech workers, and blue collar workers -- have barely left the USA. I really enjoyed the time I spent in the UK for a college semester. It permanently ruined the US city experience for me -- even NYC is not as walkable as the small-ish city I lived in. When my friends do leave the USA, it seems to largely land them at resorts, or guided tours, or other "on rai…

> When my friends do leave the USA, it seems to largely land them at resorts, or guided tours, or other "on rails" tourist experiences that disconnect them from the day-to-day life of people who live in those places.

I share your distaste for resorts and guided tours, but if a person can only get one week off, these are safe options.

For my first real trip, I had to quit my job to get sufficient time off. They would not allow time off even without pay.

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

#262

Post by DrThunder » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:33 PM UTC

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 think this is a pretty big assumption that doesn't really consider that not all people prefer densely packed urban environments.

I've visited Europe multiple times and lived in Austria for 7 months. I loved seeing new things that were so different from my midwestern home. Using the train was awesome, the ease of access to get good quality food, walkability etc.

However, returning to Europe in my 30s I don't have that same feeling anymore. Those cities give me anxiety now. There are far too many people in one area. Everyone lives in tiny apartments where they have to be careful about who they disturbed. Almost no one owns houses, much less any land to go with those houses. They're completely reliant on public transportation. There's a massive lack of access to any real nature. Everyone just seems really sheltered and most of them don't appear to have any knowledge outside of urban environments. There's also a very elitist attitude that their way of life is somehow better, even though most of them couldn't survive a day without having easy consumer access to everything.

Further into adulthood now I much prefer to live outside a city with some land and the freedom to do what I want on it. I can take my car into the city and visit whenever I want. However, I get to live outside of it with much better access to nature and imo a mentally healthier environment than a packed city. Large cities just seem packed with consumerism to me. People do nothing but go around and pay for products all day. Pay to eat, pay to have coffee, pay to go to a show. I'll visit and live elsewhere.

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

#263

Post by silent_cal » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:33 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…

Agree 100%

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

#264

Post by jjk166 » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:34 PM UTC

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…

Europe also has substantial rural areas, and they drive cars there. No one is saying we should abolish all cars and all car infrastructure. But things like residential only zoning and stroads that take a useful tool such as a car and make it a vital necessity are dumb.

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

#265

Post by neither_color » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:35 PM UTC

atwood22 wrote: post #224

dont__panic wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those big cars are the kind of "perverse market incentive" I'm talking about. Why do you need a big car to transport your children? Because: - you can't walk anywhere useful with your kids (so you must get in a car) - public transportation is inconvenient or expensive - biking is dangerous - the big car makes you feel safer because all of the other cars are big Why are those things the way that they are? Because peop…

Sorry, you don't have kids so you just don't get it. I didn't get it either before I had a kid. All of the reasons you listed, bad public transport, dangerous biking, safety, etc. have nothing to do with why I want to buy an SUV. There are just so many items involved with raising a child. Yes, you might be able to take public transit so your kid can see the doctor, as long as you time it to be at an off-peak time, bu…

Not to mention that the more stops along the way, the more "legs" of a trip involving subway line changes, bus transfers, and walks you have to make Let's say you want to stop at a park and admire the scenery, stop somewhere else to get some ice cream, stop at the hardware store because you remembered you need something, and so on. Making all those detours is much easier with a car and you're way less limited in what you can bring back with you.

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

#266

Post by pkulak » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:35 PM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #147

I love the car and car culture. I've road tripped across the U.S. and live in an RV. I will never go back to living in an apartment. There's no human connection there. I spent years living in apartments and maybe met one or two people, with no meaningful connections ever developed. Cars are great for road tripping, and America is highly optimized for it. You can, with the same vehicle, without unpacking once, travel…

No post body was provided.

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

#267

Post by dangus » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:35 PM UTC

mjevans wrote: post #252

dangus wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Air pollution: Caused by what? Probably cars. Noise pollution: Caused by what? Probably cars. (Sure, some sirens here and there, but rural and suburban living doesn't make you immune to the sounds of train crossings, highways, jake brakes, motorcycles, etc). Annoying neighbors, smell/hearing through walls: 1. Easily mitigated through smart building design and practices, enforced by building code. 2. You can have comp…

I've seen that stores against the road thing in a Food Truck cooking competition TV show. Did a good job of tricking some contestants for a bit until they realized the scale of the area was still large parking lot sized and the street was just the no consumer doors (or very infrequently used 'side' doors) face of strip malls with parking lots. Density can't be faked by flipping the lot into the middle of the block. I…

Well, I'm not saying "go ahead and build parking the exact same size as a Walmart parking lot right behind everything and all our problems are solved."

And I'm advocating for a holistic solution here: doing things like restricting the location/size of parking in addition to other measures. They all work together. Nobody's going to walk/cycle if all the pieces aren't in place.

Remember this also: You don't have to eliminate cars to reduce trips and lessen dependency. The choice on whether to use a vehicle can be left up to the individual, but if there is no realistic choice then the end result will be that the spaces we see in our lives will be maximized for vehicular use rather than a more balanced paradigm.

Great example is this business park in the Netherlands, where it's really obviously built quite well for cars with ample parking, it's nowhere near the city center, but it doesn't exclude people from getting there other ways. So, there's still a lot of space used for car-based infrastructure, but it's not anywhere near 100% car usage like you'd see in an American suburban business park: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ

Let's say that Walmart builds 500 parking spaces when there is no realistic hope of walking, but what if there was a frequent bus line stopping right in front of it, housing in close proximity, and separated bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure that felt safe and inviting. Would they build those same 500 parking spaces on their own free will (with more of them sitting empty) or would they build fewer parking spaces for a lower overall cost? Essentially, we should be prodding the "free market" to get closer to our desired outcomes rather than giving them only one choice.

If you have a situation where people driving to the grocery store use a car 100% of the time (for all the heavy bags), but maybe they only use the car 25% of the time to get coffee or get to the park to take a walk, that's still a win over using the car for 100% of activities.

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

#268

Post by onlyrealcuzzo » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:35 PM UTC

woopwoop wrote: post #186

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you said is true about Chicago - and yet Chicago has median home prices. Why is NYC so much more expensive? Because people can make more money to spend on more housing in NYC...

Everything I said is not true of Chicago. Chicago has not underbuilt housing for almost a century.

When prices start to diverge from the 70s to today - Chicago's metro population grows from 7M to 8.9M (27%) [1].

NYC metro population grows from 18.3 to 19.8M (8%) [2].

It's harder for NYC to under-build for a century when the population has not grown as much. Chicago isn't exactly a developer's utopia...

[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/22956/chicago/population

[2] https://www.macrotrends.net/states/new-york/population

If you isolate just the city - NYC does grow from 7.8M to 8.8M (12%). Manhattan goes from 1.54M to 1.69M (9%).

Chicago's downtown population growth is >40%.

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

#269

Post by Xylakant » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:36 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #242

Xylakant wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I’m not. The stores are economically viable unless you have a car centric culture. Car centric culture makes walkable mid-density neighborhoods unviable.

Cars are no longer the only way to bring in goods from outside walking distance. Online orders can also supplant the need for cars in suburbs, while producing a significantly more options than a mom&pop grocery store. And with Covid restrictions and work-from-home, deliveries and online ordering were cemented as normal behavior.

The bakery in my parents town is famous enough for their bread that some people drive 50kms to buy that bread. No delivery service will come close to that, no way. Though I generally agree with that: the need for individual cars will become less and less as more options become available.

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

#270

Post by asveikau » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:37 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…

> It's also carrying capacity, instead of making multiple inefficient trips to a local market multiple times a week I can get all my family's groceries in one trip once a week.

This is pretty weird to me.

Whenever I've had exposure to a household like that, what actually happens is they buy way too much food to keep track of it, and either you eat too much or it mostly goes bad in the fridge. I find this oddly stressful, too, the feeling of wasting food or needing to use it before it goes bad.

Whereas I like to plan a day at a time and be close enough to markets that I could potentially visit every day and it's part of the daily routine.