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

281–290 of 576 posts

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

#281

Post by Steltek »

atwood22 wrote: post #155
dont__panic wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 transp…

When your kids are just a few years older, you'll really appreciate that they can get themselves to their friends, schools, and other destinations without your car's help.

We didn't use a stroller on the T and instead opted for baby wearing. When they hit 1yo, we used a cargo bike and that still serves us extremely well to this day. In K-5, they bike themselves to school and camps (not alone, still escorted because cars are still present).

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

#282

Post by dont__panic »

eagleinparadise wrote: post #102
datadata wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where do the surface parking costs ($10-20k/stall) come from? That's astonishing to me -- I would guess that a dirt driveway can be almost free, a gravel driveway can be close to free, and a paved driveway costs a few hundred per car space.

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

#283

Post by closeparen »

falcolas wrote: post #254
stormbrew wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just isn't at all true unless you define "house" as exclusively large lot single family homes with big back and front yards. Most dense and walkable places in the world are not full of high rises, they're a mix of high density houses and low to medium density apartments. This mix is really rare in North America, at least and especially north of Mexico, but it does exist.

> a mix of high density houses and low to medium density apartments Neither of which sounds very nice to me. I don't have a huge yard, but I do have enough yard to raise a few trees and firepit. If I lost that, I might as well be in an apartment. And that still wouldn't provide enough density to support a variety of restaurants and grocery stores (not to mention things like employment for non-techies).

I grew up at 7k people per square mile. Almost all detached houses. My family’s was one of the smallest. We had a few trees and a fire pit. I walked to elementary, middle, and high school.

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

#284

Post by goodpoint »

falcolas wrote: post #36
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.

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 ha…

> dense population area - it's overwhelming, panic inducing, yet still somehow lonely

No, what you describe is a poorly designed area.

The most charming, vibrant and yet quiet districts of Tokyo or Seoul are densely populated.

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

#285

Post by __derek__ »

mancerayder wrote: post #84

High density is for young people. I've lived in ultra high density for decades and it's starting to really hurt. I sleep poorly due to noise (mostly from neighbors) and it's not fun to go for a walk anymore. I'm looking for a rural place to purchase a home because sorry, I just don't want to tolerate people's selfishness anymore. Density should come with more rules, both laws that are enforced as well as cultural rul…

> I'm looking for a rural place to purchase a home because sorry, I just don't want to tolerate people's selfishness anymore. Density should come with more rules, both laws that are enforced as well as cultural rules, and in American cities it seems chaos and lawlessness are embraced as tolerance and compassion.

Have you lived in a rural area? If not, you should find a way to try it out before taking the leap. City folks tend to have the idyllic version in their head, without realizing how loud ATVs and shotguns sound at 2 am.

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

#286

Post by dvdkon »

mjevans wrote: post #227
pkulak wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP said _home_, not single family house.

Not OP, but... Apartments suck, a lot, in the US. * Noise; aren't built to sufficient privacy levels. * Smell; laundry, cooking, or whatever... * not designed to scrub, filter, and direct exhaust. * Patios == smoke or grill; even though those are banned by policy. * Somehow cost more than renting elsewhere * Rent seeking causes negative patterns * Car parking hell As much as the anti-car crowd wants to be anti-car, t…

It seems bad appartments are leading entire generations into thinking all appartments have to be terrible, last-resort options. I'm renting a recently renovated appartment , and while it's not perfect, the sound isolation is so good, that my roommate can play games with voice chat and I can sleep in the next room. Only a ~5cm wall separates our rooms.

I think a future with comfortable, large, isolated apartments is possible, and even such "fancy" apartments are going to be cheaper than full houses, if there are enough of them.

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

#287

Post by tjr225 »

falcolas wrote: post #280
tjr225 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We moved to a smaller city(Tacoma) inside of a big city metro(Seattle) for about half of the cost of a SFH in Seattle proper and it’s great. Can walk and bike to multiple grocery stores, beach, parks, etc. If I get the big city itch it’s easy enough to scratch it.

Tacoma's nice. I lived there for a few years, and wouldn't mind moving back to that area. That said, where I lived (an apartment on the top of the knob west of the docks), I couldn't realistically bike or walk to anything of value other than the bus stop.

Yeah I can’t really speak outside of the north end in the past couple years or so, but proctor, stadium, old town, Ruston and even around 6th all have a nice mix of local and chain stuff now.

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

#288

Post by closeparen »

spamizbad wrote: post #42

I always thought it was strange when people would say "The automobile represent freedom". I grew up in a "streetcar suburb" and later moved to a big city. So for me, cars were always viewed as an expensive annoyance you might need depending on your life circumstances, but certainly not something you'd go out of your way to buy unless you needed it. But as I got older and lived briefly in a suburb of Houston TX it fin…

This style of planning is neither quirky nor incompetent: it is dead center orthodoxy of the entire North American urban planning profession, body of regulation, and all of the intellectual edifice behind it since WWII.

This lecture from a New Urbanist architect is enlightening: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NnBVujWunQ8

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

#289

Post by trgn »

tmh88j wrote: post #256
trgn wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess we were in different places.

What cities are you referring to? Surely not the larger ones like London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Berlin, etc...

Yeah, certainly, they were smaller. Lived for a number of years in Ghent and Leuven. Like living in a palace. There's nothing that compares to it here. :(

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

#290

Post by dont__panic »

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…

> Sorry, you don't have kids so you just don't get it.

I know you prefaced this with "sorry" but this is incredibly condescending. You're literally starting your argument with "it is impossible for you to empathize" -- but I have plenty of friends and family members with children and very much understand your struggle. Have a little more faith.

Your "very basic example" is exactly the kind of niche case trip where I would suggest you SHOULD use a car because of American infrastructure.

I'm mostly talking about daily errands and recreation in your home city. Going to the park, or the beach, or visiting some shops, or having dinner, or going to the doctor, or going to school shouldn't require a big SUV. If they do, I suspect you're transporting a lot more crap with you than you truly need for your kid. And you're ignoring the negative externality of imprisoning your child in a car-centric world where they have no freedom whatsoever.

Post reply on HN