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

291–300 of 576 posts

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

#291

Post by twblalock »

kuschku wrote: post #244
twblalock wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law against jaywalking is an excellent law. Look at some of those colorized YouTube videos of cities in the early 1900s, like this one: https://youtu.be/1Ok_lwYyHWo It’s insanity. People dodging cars, cars dodging people and each other. At modern road speeds that would result in mass death. Besides all that, yes of course we live in a manufactured environment. All environments are manufactured to some degree. And…

That's interesting, do you think the UK is a place with mass death? (It has no laws against jaywalking). Or Germany? (Crossing a red light is a fine of a few euros, but crossing roads elsewhere is legal).

Watch the video I linked to. That sort of behavior does not happen en masse in the UK and Germany, and if it did, they would ban it too.

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

#292

Post by cultofmetatron »

navbaker wrote: post #175
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.

Do you realize how massively big the US is and how incredibly diverse of an experience you can have just traveling to the next state over? Having a passport/leaving the country isn't a requirement to see that there is a better or different way to live.

I hate this argument because its always used to jutsify staying in the US.

do you realize how homogeneous the US is when compared to the diversity you get between different countries? and yes, I've been to all 4 corners and the midwest. There's more in common between LA and the midwest than between LA and southeast asia for example.

The equivalent drive in europe or asia will net you a rapidly shifting palette of languages, customs, holidays and foods. Not to mention the added perspective of seeing another countries politics and how it puts into perspective out own obsession with a two party system.

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

#293

Post by eweise »

asveikau wrote: post #270
scottLobster wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stress…

Its much cheaper to load up the car at costco every couple of weeks, than go down to the corner store every day.

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

#294

Post by Steltek »

hardnose wrote: post #247
Steltek wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your positive examples all have one thing in common: they're not happening in cities. Just because a car makes sense in the countryside or beach does not mean it makes sense inside of a city. A problem with our approach to urban planning is that we get large, sterile apartment buildings or detached single family homes but absolutely nothing in between. If that missing middle was allowed by right, you'd find what I en…

>they're not happening in cities. Neither is people willingly moving there. Dense urban living might appeal to young people but once you build a family and priorities change to peace & quiet, safety, good schools, and stable property values, dense urban living loses most of its appeal.

Those values are totally compatible with dense urban living! I have kids and enjoy all of those things in a walkable/bikeable community (Boston, MA). Most Americans have never seen it work so they think it's impossible. The reality is that it's illegal to build these places and the environment found here was built before NIMBYs strangled it.

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

#295

Post by TaupeRanger »

asveikau wrote: post #270
scottLobster wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stress…

I find your comment weird. Make 1 trip to get all of the stuff you need for an entire family in one trip per week, or make 1 trip a day to get stuff for just that day, waiting in line to checkout 5-7 times, taking up valuable time you could spend doing other things.

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

#296

Post by sillystuff »

kodah wrote: post #10
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.

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 don't want a life without a car within the constraints of the current options for going car-free within the US-- mainly living in a large high density city, and still having to contend with vehicular traffic and pollution. But, I strongly desire life without a car.

If there was a 50K population max car-free walkable town with all the necessities available within said town, I would move there in an instant. I've searched for this, in the past, it doesn't exist. I live in the next best, a For long range travel, expand passenger trains. There is an Amtrak stop in my town, and I travel via Amtrak extensively to visit friends-- it is a very nice way to travel long distances.

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

#297

Post by closeparen »

hardnose wrote: post #247
Steltek wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your positive examples all have one thing in common: they're not happening in cities. Just because a car makes sense in the countryside or beach does not mean it makes sense inside of a city. A problem with our approach to urban planning is that we get large, sterile apartment buildings or detached single family homes but absolutely nothing in between. If that missing middle was allowed by right, you'd find what I en…

>they're not happening in cities. Neither is people willingly moving there. Dense urban living might appeal to young people but once you build a family and priorities change to peace & quiet, safety, good schools, and stable property values, dense urban living loses most of its appeal.

Once you build a family you need 3 bedrooms and probably don’t have $1.8 million for such a condo. But the reason condos cost so much per square foot is regulation. Fundamentally, they should be cheaper than comparable houses.

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

#298

Post by j-wags »

hardnose wrote: post #247
Steltek wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your positive examples all have one thing in common: they're not happening in cities. Just because a car makes sense in the countryside or beach does not mean it makes sense inside of a city. A problem with our approach to urban planning is that we get large, sterile apartment buildings or detached single family homes but absolutely nothing in between. If that missing middle was allowed by right, you'd find what I en…

>they're not happening in cities. Neither is people willingly moving there. Dense urban living might appeal to young people but once you build a family and priorities change to peace & quiet, safety, good schools, and stable property values, dense urban living loses most of its appeal.

The Netherlands seems to pull off having a high fertility rate [1] and high population density [2]. Anecdotally, my friend who was born there in the late 1980s described being allowed to travel alone starting from a young age. I had one American friend born in the same generation who was allowed to bike around LA in his mid-teens, and my parents almost called CPS on him.

[1] https://i.redd.it/k03mlnruuro61.jpg [2] https://www.stockingblue.com/article/126/european-union-stat...

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

#299

Post by yeeyeeyee »

welshwelsh wrote: post #274
massysett wrote: post #133

I always snicker at these "built for cars" screeds, as though the "cars" are empty self-serving machines that are fulfilling their own needs. Every car has at least one person in it. That person is going shopping, going to work, socializing, etc., or servicing the needs of others - my plumber's van is essential so that he can fix my plumbing. So no, places are not "built for cars" - they are built to satisfy human ne…

Most cars have only one person in it, despite taking up as much space as 10 people. Most cars are parked for most of the day, which is a complete waste of space. Stores need huge parking lots, which are usually mostly empty, to accommodate the busiest times. Cars are a horrible way of fulfilling human needs. Going shopping? The corner store next to your apartment should have everything you need for daily life. Work?…

Ok, get a motorcycle then.

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

#300

Post by frenchy »

dont__panic wrote: post #282
eagleinparadise wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Land value. Where I live, 80% of the cost of our property is the land itself, and only 20% is the building or "improvement".
Post reply on HN