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

#361

Post by egypturnash » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 5:45 PM UTC

dont__panic wrote: post #245

stormbrew wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, you just can't have a walkability score for an entire large city. There's a lot of variation. You have to look at specific neighborhoods. This is especially true in north America where cities all went through a huge conglomeration effort in the second half of the 20th century and absorbed their suburbs.

Of course I'm referring to the address I lived at in those places. I'm mostly complaining that Zillow's built-in "walkability" scoring based on addresses is abysmally inaccurate for the places I've lived in.

https://www.walkscore.com/ has aligned with my experiences pretty well.

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

#362

Post by wing-_-nuts » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 5:46 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #297

hardnose wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>But the reason condos cost so much per square foot is regulation.

Can you cite any specific examples of such regulations here? I currently live in a condo that was converted over from an apartments (quite common). If anything, the reason a condo might cost more per square foot is that smaller houses cost more per sqft period (less sqft to 'divide' fixed expenses across).

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

#363

Post by __derek__ » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 5:46 PM UTC

FFRefresh wrote: post #352

__derek__ wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 f…

I grew up in a rural area, and I experienced zero instances of loud ATVs and shotguns where I lived, at any time of day. This view sounds like a TV trope, which one might lean on if they don't have much in-person experience of living in a rural area themselves. The advice to try it before you buy it is sound though.

Why would I make it up? What a bizarre accusation.

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

#364

Post by skyyler » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 5:46 PM UTC

pkulak wrote: post #324

twblalock wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most public transit is subsidized by taxes too.

And so are schools, and lighthouses, and all kinds of other things that benefit society. Subsidizing polluting nomads who eat up highway capacity and free parking isn't an intentional policy that we've all decided to do because we like the result. EDIT: which is to say that cities can exist as the tax-generating powerhouses that they are _because_ they subsidize public transportation. That subsidized city transit is…

>That subsidized city transit is why we can afford to maintain the highway system.

I don't think this follows...

Cities that don't have good public transit still generate tax revenue.

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

#365

Post by bart_spoon » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 5:46 PM UTC

pickovven wrote: post #68

jaywalk wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've traveled to plenty of cities where many/most people don't own cars, in the US and Europe. I still have zero desire to live in such a city.

Cool. No one is forcing you to live in those places.

The entire premise of this thread is to essentially make as much of the US like those places, from a transportation perspective, as possible.

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

#366

Post by anovikov » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 5:46 PM UTC

spiffage wrote: post #172

anovikov wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mor…

Walkability in rich countries is expensive precisely because lots of people want walkability, and that want is underserved. It's signal that we should allow more of it to happen!

Walkability is expensive because density. Walkability = density. And density means that real estate is small and there is a competition to get it. A walkable place just can't be big to stay walkable, and it has to include a lot of things to still be liveable.

A suburbia can cover entire continent easily and stay cheap because land, on the scale needed for private houses, is almost free. It just doesn't work this way with liveable cities that have to be small, and quickly lose attractiveness as you move away from the very core which is normally only a few hundred meters in radius.

European cities look nice for a tourist but people living in "nice" parts of them are living there either because their ancestors bought their apartments pre-WWI, or because of one-off luck, or because they are rich. Vast majority still lives in the outskirts that look a lot more like Soviet Union than "Europe" the way Americans see it.

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

#367

Post by sebnukem2 » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 5:47 PM UTC

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…

I argue that the car is mankind's worst invention, by many metrics.

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

#368

Post by wikitopian » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 5:47 PM UTC

The SFH + Cars lifestyle results in a higher TFR than the efficiency pods and pogo sticks lifestyle everybody's promoting lately.

How would you even fit an infant seat on a pogo stick?

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

#369

Post by vangelis » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 5:48 PM UTC

__derek__ wrote: post #285

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 f…

ATVs sound a lot louder at 2am in the city, but nobody is going to call you racist for complaining about the ones in the country.

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

#370

Post by jrussino » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

Panther34543 wrote: post #340

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where? A town of 50,000 with 100 restaurants, many bars, and multiple theaters and festivals would be a highly desirable place to live for many, many people. What area were you referring to?

Not the original commenter, but as they mentioned "college town" I would offer up Evanston, IL (home of Northwestern University) as a good example. ~75k population according to Wikipedia, so a little bigger than the target, but lots to do within walking/biking range and you can take the L into Chicago if that's not enough.