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

341–350 of 576 posts

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

#341

Post by babycake »

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've always wanted to bike, and the city finally said yes, let's make the city bike-friendly.

And then they go ahead and just paint a white bike lane right next to the car lane. Yea, even when politicians listen to their constituents, they just half ass the effort.

I'm not risking my life to ride in that bike lane, so I still use a car.

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

#342

Post by scruple »

dont__panic wrote: post #313
scruple wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife and I are seriously considering our options in smaller towns in New England. Many of them predate the automobile and have the sorts of qualities that are being talked about in this thread.

I highly recommend. Hanover/Lebanon, Burlington, and Montpelier are decent places to start if you want access to arts, music, theatre, etc. If you're willing to compromise on some of those things in favor of outdoor activities, there are a LOT of great small towns in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine that let you walk and bike to the basics. If you enjoy biking to establishments, it's worth it to actively think about…

I've spent quite a bit of time looking at Vermont, specifically Burlington and Montpelier. I have a very good friend from who was born in Burlington and who moved back there to raise his kids. Those two cities are at the top of our list, but I'd also like to explore/research more of New Hampshire, Maine, and western Massachusetts. We spent some time in Maine, on the coast during the early fall, and really enjoyed it.

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

#343

Post by ryukafalz »

TaupeRanger wrote: post #295
asveikau wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think suburban and car-oriented grocery stores give people a skewed impression of how time-consuming it is to check out at a grocery store. If everyone is loading up their cart, the lines are going to be long because everyone has to unload it at checkout. By contrast, if most people are there for just a few things, you speed through the line if there even is one.

Bonus if it has a self-scanner like this one to further speed things up, though unfortunately we don’t have any like that near me: https://youtu.be/kYHTzqHIngk

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

#344

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

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…

Pretty much the only time my wife and I use our car is for groceries. We plan out the week, buy only the perishables that we need for the planned meals and get in and out with ~5 bag of groceries in an hour, hour and a half with a commute.

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

#345

Post by NCC1701DEngage »

snapscape wrote: post #164
warning26 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy, supply and demand. Before cars, dense housing was the norm, but cars popularized spreading everything out as much as possible so you have room for wide roads and lots of parking. Less density -> less housing overall -> decreased supply -> increased prices

Not to mention the increased cost of maintaining the infrastructure for all of that suburban sprawl. The farther apart things are the more asphalt, water and sewage pipes, fire department coverage, school buses and drivers, street lamps, etc. are required. That money has to come from somewhere. Strong Towns and Not Just Bikes has a great series on this: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN...

I'm working on a team to make alternative YouTube recommendations. Here is our list of similar channels for Not Just Bikes which includes dozens of urban design and transit channels like Oh the Urbanity! and Shifter:

https://channelgalaxy.com/id%3DUC0intLFzLaudFG-xAvUEO-A/

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

#346

Post by ceeplusplus »

dont__panic wrote: post #211
umvi wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know about annoying neighbors and smells. If you live in a lower income area, get used to your condo/townhouse occasionally smelling like marijuana and/or tobacco whenever the neighbors decide to hotbox. Also get used to arguments and loud music late at night on weekends. > That seems to be a design and engineering issue. I'm sure you could build hermetically and acoustically sealed condos that keep out all…

Sounds like issues that an HOA (if you're into that) or the police/311 ought to address in a city. I assume that's why these services exist -- to resolve conflicts between people who live in dense environments where there is no option but to resolve the conflict. If those issues go unresolved, that's a dereliction of city government and apartment administration duty.

If I have a kid who is learning music, your plan screws over any opportunity they have to practice at home. I've lived in newly built apartments and even those are not sound proof.

Not to mention public transit is dirty and unsafe in any major city in the US because there is way too much tolerance for disorderly and disruptive people.

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

#347

Post by vangelis »

mtalantikite wrote: post #221
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…

Sounds like you should move to a rural place, and that's great! There's plenty of that in the US. And it sounds like you live in a place where biking on the sidewalk is legal, which I agree it shouldn't be (it's not here in NYC). But let's not throw away high density living because old people think the kids are making too much noise. As a New Yorker, I prefer the boisterousness of the city, because it sounds like joy…

If not having motorbikes ripping through the streets at 2am is gentrification, so be it.

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

#348

Post by [deleted] »

dont__panic wrote: post #290
atwood22 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#349

Post by closeparen »

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?

Car-oriented development seems to scale efficiently - bringing in a lot of new, cheap land - up until you hit the level of traffic that people will tolerate. Then it's done. New neighborhoods take too long to commute from. Densifying existing neighborhoods threatens parking, which people who live there still need, because they still live in an overall car-dependent metro. Overlaying public transit doesn't do much either, since people's origins and destinations are evenly dispersed instead of clustering around stations like they would in a real public transit city. Without transportation capacity there's no growth, and without growth it's a zero sum competition for existing homes.

You can get a whole hell of a lot further before you hit the physical limits of public transit network architectures.

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

#350

Post by Invictus0 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #97
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.

30% is 100 million Americans. Also, a passport was not required to travel in North America (not sure if that is still the case). I traveled throughout Mexico and Canada before ever having a passport, for example.

Consider that America has around 45 million immigrants, most of whom probably haven't seen much of the world either. Assuming all those immigrants have no native-born children (an obviously terrible assumption), then we have 50 million passports for 250 million native-born Americans, a 20% rate. Compare that to germany's 90% rate.
Post reply on HN