Live data from Hacker News

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

vox.com

411–420 of 576 posts

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

#411

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…

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.

Not sure if this is the place you're talking about, but this sounds a lot like Portland, Maine. Portland has one of the highest restaurant densities due to being a tourist destination. It has a semi-dense downtown with a lot of very nice walkable areas. Look up "Portland Maine Old Port" to get a sense of what it's like downtown.

Unfortunately, there are relatively few places to live inside the dense part of town. The city is overly-zealous about maintaining historic districts and you'd better believe people get all up in arms about "changing the character of the neighborhood" every time a new development is proposed, even in non-historic and totally dilapidated areas. I've seen literally hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new housing and commercial projects be cancelled or indefinitely postponed due to this attitude just in the last 10 years.

While the city has a lot of potential, it's population has stagnated since the 1970s and the surrounding area has become a massive suburban sprawl. Many of the buildings downtown have been replaced with parking lots. Traffic is generally terrible, and the bus system has low coverage and poor frequencies.

Around 100 years ago, Portland was a thriving metropolis with electric trolleys going to every imaginable destination. All of those trolleys are gone now and their tracks have either been removed or awkwardly paved over.

Portland was once a vibrant inter-city train hub with hourly connections to the rest of Maine. The two primary stations, Union Station, and Grand Trunk Terminal, have been torn down. The current train hub, "Portland Transportation Center" is much further from the city center to make room for a large parking lot. It is about a 40 minute walk from what is considered the downtown area. 20 minutes by bus if your schedule happens to line up.

It's pretty disappointing how much better it once was. I'm doubtful that it will ever be as good as it was back then, but still hopeful. There are plans to move the train station back to where Union Station was. New routes to Lewiston and Rockland have been studied (although would apparently cost hundreds of millions to repair the tracks). The state has recently subsidized certain interstate train and bus routes to make them very affordable. And generally I think a lot of problems could be immediately solved by straightening out bus routes and increasing frequency, as well as obviously removing a lot of building-size restrictions and parking minimums.

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

#412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Having grown up in western MA I'd highly recommend it. There are lots of small towns with back roads for biking. There's also loads of state forest land and great hiking, as the Appalachian Trail passes through the region. The ski mountains are smaller than those to the north, but they're fine for kids and the bigger ones are a short drive away. It's a bit less rugged and outdoorsy than ME, NH or VT but the schools are the best out of the lot if that's a concern for you.

It's also almost evenly centered between NYC and Boston if you want to do weekend city adventures. You'll probably still need a car but if you live in the center of town you won't use it except for longer trips.

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

#413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fact that it is hard if not impossible to develop this style of neighborhood is still a problem.

Every passing year is another one in which old buildings are redeveloped and the US population grows, increasing market pressure.

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

#414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I understand there are a few places in America you can live where there are a lot more restaurants densely packed.

These also are the highest cost of living places in the world to live. It's not practical to think everyone could live like that. They also are miserable with homeless people, drug addicts, and crime. It also relies on a huge network of people commuting to those jobs to support that area.

You can't have 30 restaurants within a few square miles with all the people to support that living there in homes. You'd need a combination of super dense housing and people commuting. It's really inefficient.

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

#415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been tried several times in cities and by and large it seems to be profitable for the businesses.

Source? Just curious

Ann Arbor MI closed Main Street for the summer months to allow restaurant patrons to sit outside. I think this began during year 2(?) of covid. This especially makes sense in a college town when the students are away (half the population) and the reduced traffic is relatively easy to shunt around the closed off areas.

Conversely, Kalamazoo MI closed off a major downtown street year-round around 1975 to encourage foot traffic, but found few takers especially in winter. After a decade or so of declining attendance in general (as interest in the downtown also faded) they finally reopened the street to motor traffic.

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

#416
post #136

I lived in New York City my entire life and I am now wanting a house. I am tired of living in an apartment building. This idea that people live together communally within buildings or neighborhoods is very overrated. I have lived in multiple apartments and never has there been a real community there. The building has one holiday party and out of 144 apartments maybe 15 people show up. The posts on the chat board that…

> I lived in New York City my entire life and I am now wanting a house. I am tired of living in an apartment building. This idea that people live together communally within buildings or neighborhoods is very overrated. I feel the same way. I grew up in an urban environment, moved to rural areas, now back in an urban environment. I can't wait to get out of here. Too many people, too much noise and too much energy spen…

There is a middle ground. Walkable suburbs were commonplace in the pre-war era.

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

#417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a citation for this? My intuition is that the construction of low density track housing would have far less regulatory burden than high density housing. It also has a (more) robust labor force in the US especially compared with high density construction, a framing carpenter does not a steel fitter make. > High density housing gets bogged down in reviews and permitting, Yes, because it's more high stakes a…

> Do you have a citation for this? I don't have a citation for construction costs, and I will concede that there are many factors that may make some low density developments cheaper per unit then some higher density development. However, construction is only part of the picture. Low density development imposes terrible financial costs for cities that contain them. That's because the taxable value per square mile is m…

> has the same per-mile maintenance and replacement costs.

No it doesn't, the cost to tear up a street in a high density area is much higher than it is in a low density area, especially if we are looking at hidden economic costs.

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

#418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I bike thousands of miles a year. I love it. I also don't want to bike to grocery stores and restaurants. Sweaty in the summer, and we get -30F in the winter and our city tends to be very windy with wind chills down to -60F.

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

#419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manhattan has a lot of car traffic. Short of the urban core of Philly, DC, Chicago, SF, or my favorite parts of Brooklyn (which also have a lot of car traffic), nothing seems nearly as walkable in the US. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see congestion pricing and fewer cars on the streets in Manhattan. The best walkable suburbs I've visited, Montclair and Red Bank in NJ and Ardmore, PA seem pretty sad, small, and bor…

Sometimes, people are looking for small and boring, like some parents who are raising kids and are no longer partying every weekend. (There are also pros and cons to raising children in cities; growing up in NYC I got a free transit pass in middle school and was able to take myself to places like the Met and the Guggenheim pretty effortlessly, and you certainly can't get amenities like those everywhere.) There's noth…

Nothing wrong with small and boring, but even boring suburbs should have a grocery store within walking distance of most houses, which they mostly don't in the US.

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

#420

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.

Maybe you think that because the only dense urban living options available to you are the car hellscapes?

I've been raised in Warsaw (a dense capital of Poland). I've had good schools within walking distance. I've had access to quiet green spaces within walking and biking distance (they weren't paved over for parking lots). I've had lots of places to hang out with my friends, who lived nearby, or whom I could reach myself via frequent, reliable, and affordable public transport.

And Warsaw wasn't a particularly utopian city. Just built with decent public transport and without NIMBY zoning policies.

Post reply on HN