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

#391

Post by greggman3 » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:02 PM UTC

mminer237 wrote: post #327

cycomanic wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While all that might be true, it is also true that hardly anyone would be willing to cover the true cost of living in rural areas far away from things. In pretty much every country I'm aware of the urban population is strongly subsidising the rural. And that is only covering first order cost (just look at the massive subsidies to get broadband to rural communities), if we would put prizes on second order cost like po…

> the reality already is that there is a massive move into the cities not the other way around That's not what the data says, at least in the US. We consistently see a net change of about 2 million people per year moving out of cities and into the surrounding suburbs: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/12/16/in-2020-few... And the desire to live in cities is shrinking as well, now at under 20%: https://www.pe…

That is arguably because US cities suck. They don't have good public transportation, the kind that even well to do people choose to ride regularly like they do in say Tokyo, London, Switerland, Netherlands, etc.. They also don't have good bicycle infrustructure. And they have lots of crime or crime of the types and amounts that get people to want to live in the safer suburbs. Even the cities in the US are usually designed around cars, not people

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

#392

Post by bart_spoon » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:03 PM UTC

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.

Completely agree with you, and its telling that virtually every response here has been "That's only true in the US!". I've lived in Japan, and its true, urban living there is much better for families. But the premise of this thread is American cities and why people choose to live elsewhere, dependent on their cars. And the answer is precisely what you've said.

American cities are not only unpleasant families and the many people who don't fall in the young, single, relatively wealthy professional class, they are actively hostile towards them. Almost no one in the suburbs lives there because they love suburban life. They live there because it's the lesser evil compared to living in the city, given their personal situation. The people here calling for bans on cars are treating cancer with cough medicine. If people want to remove the American dependence on cars, they need to make American cities a more than a playground for the young professional class, and make them places a large proportion of Americans would actually want to live in.

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

#393

Post by aaronm67 » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:03 PM UTC

trombone5000 wrote: post #80

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

Less density doesn't imply less housing, especially when empty land is cheap, as it typically is in the USA. You just use more space. I hate cars, and I hate how expensive housing is, but as far as I can tell, housing is even more expensive in places (in the USA anyway) where cars are less necessary.

You're comparing only the densest places (i.e. expensive places with mostly apartments) to only the least dense places, giant houses on big lots. Look at a pre-1950s / railroad neighborhood of basically any smaller/older city in the US, you'll often find a walkable, affordable neighborhood of single family homes.

Also - cheap land does not mean that it's cheap to build and maintain. Almost all of the infrastructure required to build (sewer, power, roads, etc) scale up with area, not density.

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

#394

Post by microtherion » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

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…

You realize that people were raising children for millenia before the invention of SUVs, and are still raising children in most of the world without them?

I have two children; for most of their childhood we did not have a car at all (though we occasionally rented a midsized one for road trips), now we have a small one. Traveling with a stroller is certainly a hassle, but they do fit on public transit and in small cars. The crib is probably the one tricky part, but there are several solutions that don't require an SUV.

It seems to me that the massive car and the habit of packing half the household into it for a trip sort of went hand in hand, but this is absolutely not the only way to manage raising children.

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

#395

Post by FFRefresh » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:06 PM UTC

__derek__ wrote: post #363

FFRefresh wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There was no accusation of making up anything, as I cannot possibly know your personal experience.

What I was doing was pushing back on using comically outlier events as something representative of rural living, that the GP would have to reckon with if they were to live in a rural setting. Nobody I know who has lived in a rural environment has ever experienced what you highlighted. If you did experience that, it sounds like you just had shitty neighbors or you lived next to a recreational area where that is more likely to happen, and I would caution against extrapolating that experience to being the norm among rural residents.

The irony is I never have been woken up by ATV's and shotguns in decades growing up in a rural environment, but have certainly been woken up by those things a number of times in urban environments.

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

#396

Post by 29083011397778 » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:06 PM UTC

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.

From what I recall growing up, Vancouver's bike lanes were not well-recieved (by what I imagine was a slight minority) when they started taking lanes from traffic. "They're always empty", "They're unsafe", "What about the cars and increased wait" were some of the complaints I remember. Over time, they've gotten dramatically better, and public opinion is shifting as they improve.

Bike lanes become more common, so they grant access to more areas instead of getting you 90% of the way there, so they can be used, and people can take advantage of them, and see (or know someone), that uses them. It all ends up being a positive feedback cycle for bicycles.

They may not be popular in your city, but if they can keep the political motivation up for a few election cycles, it can work :)

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

#397

Post by closeparen » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:08 PM UTC

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #362

closeparen wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Try a zoning map, like San Francisco. Multifamily structures are illegal on the vast majority of the land. In those areas that do allow multifamily, it is mostly very small ones. And even when a large multifamily structure is permitted by zoning, it can be years of environmental litigation and discretionary review hearings.

https://sfplanning.org/sites/default/files/resources/2019-02...

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

#398

Post by ryanj20021 » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

Check out what we’re doing at Culdesac. We build cities for people, not cars.

We’re building a 1000 resident car free neighborhood in Tempe, AZ. It is under construction now. Over 25 buildings are vertical and the first residents move in later this year.

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

#399

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #358

frumper wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grocery store doesn't need to be near everyone's home. It just needs to be near your home. Buy a home in a location that suits your needs.

The problem is that the overwhelming majority of land in the US is zoned in such a way where this is not legal, and as a result the relatively few locations that do accommodate this lifestyle have high premiums (both on a per unit and per sq ft basis)

This is mostly a problem with postwar urbanism. Older regions of the country will have neighborhoods that retain some local business activity.

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

#400

Post by ryukafalz » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

kennend3 wrote: post #138

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

You should spend some time and look at what housing prior to cars was really like as you are very wrong that "dense housing was the norm". Prior to cars, there were large "estate" houses with separate carriage houses for the horses. These homes often sat on very large plots of land. Prior to that, was old farm houses, where a neighbour could be a KM away? You seem to be thinking of "row housing" which at least in nor…

> Prior to cars, there were large "estate" houses with separate carriage houses for the horses.

Maybe for the rich? I don't think most people could afford that.

> You seem to be thinking of "row housing" which at least in north america was more a post-WWII design?

They are substantially older than that: https://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/essays/row-houses/