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

381–390 of 576 posts

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

#381

Post by fassssst »

nightski wrote: post #376
AlwaysRock wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the hardest parts about buying a home, apart from all the stuff that isnt fun about buying a home, is finding somewhere that is walkable to... anything. I've rented my whole life and spent my entire adult life in cities. The idea of having to get in the car to get milk or something from the corner store, or have to drive to ANY restaurant, or not have some type of walking/running path within a few blocks of my…

Hot take - walkability is super overrated. I don't want to go to the same 5 resturaunts I can walk to. I like variety. I work from home and don't commute, but when I do go out I want to explore . Another hot take - Being in the middle of a city doesn't make one more social. Actually it can be more lonely ironically. You are surrounded by strangers. In my current suburb I am good friend with all of my neighbors. We sh…

E-bike then. I can get anywhere in a 2 mile radius in Seattle faster with my e-bike than with my car, and I always get a prime parking spot right outside where I’m going.

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

#382

Post by whymauri »

nightski wrote: post #376
AlwaysRock wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the hardest parts about buying a home, apart from all the stuff that isnt fun about buying a home, is finding somewhere that is walkable to... anything. I've rented my whole life and spent my entire adult life in cities. The idea of having to get in the car to get milk or something from the corner store, or have to drive to ANY restaurant, or not have some type of walking/running path within a few blocks of my…

Hot take - walkability is super overrated. I don't want to go to the same 5 resturaunts I can walk to. I like variety. I work from home and don't commute, but when I do go out I want to explore . Another hot take - Being in the middle of a city doesn't make one more social. Actually it can be more lonely ironically. You are surrounded by strangers. In my current suburb I am good friend with all of my neighbors. We sh…

I live in Cambridge, MA and there are over 80 restaurants and bars within my 15 minute walkshed.

We also have block parties, lol.

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

#383

Post by my_usernam3 »

pkulak wrote: post #266
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

I'm anti car too... but your argument about maintenance/tax money is heavily flawed. Both systems need government assistance. Also heavier vehicles pay a significantly larger portion in registration for this reason.

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

#384

Post by soledades »

nightski wrote: post #376
AlwaysRock wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the hardest parts about buying a home, apart from all the stuff that isnt fun about buying a home, is finding somewhere that is walkable to... anything. I've rented my whole life and spent my entire adult life in cities. The idea of having to get in the car to get milk or something from the corner store, or have to drive to ANY restaurant, or not have some type of walking/running path within a few blocks of my…

Hot take - walkability is super overrated. I don't want to go to the same 5 resturaunts I can walk to. I like variety. I work from home and don't commute, but when I do go out I want to explore . Another hot take - Being in the middle of a city doesn't make one more social. Actually it can be more lonely ironically. You are surrounded by strangers. In my current suburb I am good friend with all of my neighbors. We sh…

im sorry to tell you but this take is simply ignoring the fact the amount of restuaurants you can walk to increases with the square of the density.

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

#385

Post by mlsu »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #109
dont__panic wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think car haters deny that cars can be useful, particularly in the environment we've constructed here in the USA. Hell, I own (half of) a car, because I want to visit family and friends who live a couple of hours away, and there's no train or even bus that could bring me to them. > The suburbs were built for people driving cars. Not just cars. People getting rides in cars, avoiding weather, sitting comfortabl…

No. You're missing my point. Those giant four lane roads were built for cars AND people moving together. The people are a big part of the equation. All of them are going some place. Some might be going to yoga. Some to church. Some to work. Some to the hospital. Etc. Yes, some might be doing something completely worthless and bad for society too, but, in general, people are the ones using the roads. The cars are only…

You may want to look carefully at the motives of some of those 1950s and 1960s planners. The phrases "White Flight," "Redlining," "Blockbusting," "Steering" would be a good place to begin.

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

#386

Post by pkulak »

skyyler wrote: post #364
pkulak wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, but not on the level of NYC, Chicago, SF, and LA (which actually has decent public transport (for the US), despite the reputation). Yes, then there are cities like Houston, but they are paying for 16-lane urban freeways, which have to at least cancel out any cost savings from not having much public transport.

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

#387

Post by randcraw »

babycake wrote: post #341
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.

Yeah, I live about 15 miles outside Philly and don't know anywhere nearby safe enough to ride. Local drivers think nothing of missing you by only a foot or two, often at a speed difference of over 20 MPH.

Even offroad spaces set aside for bike routes often cross busy highways without proper signage, putting riders and pedestrians in the crosshairs of fast turning vehicles that are surprised to find anyone on the road who's not motorized. With the rise of big big SUVs and even bigger trucks, those who are not likewise encased in a large metal cage are just too easy to miss. Or hit.

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

#388

Post by april_22 »

nightski wrote: post #376
AlwaysRock wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the hardest parts about buying a home, apart from all the stuff that isnt fun about buying a home, is finding somewhere that is walkable to... anything. I've rented my whole life and spent my entire adult life in cities. The idea of having to get in the car to get milk or something from the corner store, or have to drive to ANY restaurant, or not have some type of walking/running path within a few blocks of my…

Hot take - walkability is super overrated. I don't want to go to the same 5 resturaunts I can walk to. I like variety. I work from home and don't commute, but when I do go out I want to explore . Another hot take - Being in the middle of a city doesn't make one more social. Actually it can be more lonely ironically. You are surrounded by strangers. In my current suburb I am good friend with all of my neighbors. We sh…

I would say bikeability is the best. If you live in any quiter regions of most mid- to large sized cities in western europe and scandinavia you will have access to a huge variety of possibilites, restaurants, bars etc. and can access everything relaviely quick, while living in a quiet area. Biking is also fun imo.

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

#389

Post by woopwoop »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #268
woopwoop wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/p…

This is pretty far afield at this point, but while Chicago may not be a developer's paradise, it's substantially better than New York.

In any case, though, the original question is whether population density actually makes a place less desirable. The mere fact that Chicago is not cheap (not simply inexpensive, but actually cheap) contradicts the claim that population density is something people don't want.

Post reply on HN