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

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

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…

Post by aprdm » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:28 PM UTC

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…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:29 PM UTC

econonut wrote: post #206

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…

Could you be specific about how the urban population is subsidizing the rural? Also, where does most of your food come from? What do you mean in regards to CO2? I'd suggest that many people living a rural lifestyle completely offset their CO2 footprint due to carbon sequestration. I know I have enough trees and vegetation on my acreage to completely offset my carbon emissions. But, of course, to counter your argument…

Post by psyc » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:34 PM UTC

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…

Post by onlyrealcuzzo » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 6:35 PM UTC

woopwoop wrote: post #389

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.