Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People hate the idea of car-free cities until they live in one

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 345 posts

Re: People hate the idea of car-free cities until they live in one

#311

Post by jjav »

alkonaut wrote: post #133
lucumo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but if you would ask people "would you prefer to have a supermarket 5 minutes away or one 20 kilometers away" I doubt anybody would say "no I want only things far to be forced to use a car". For most people it's not about the supermarket. Those are a dime a dozen and all the same. It's easy to provide those in sufficient amounts everywhere. Now try it with jobs. Not any job, but your job. Is it possible to have you…

> Between the trade-off bad job, no time, and car/public transport, the car quickly becomes the best solution If you beat public transport by using a car then there just isn't enough public transit or the city isn't dense enough (likely the former, due to the latter). If you live 3km from your job in London or NYC then at least during rush hour it's likely to be faster to use public transport than a car. > Life becom…

> This is again based on the premise that public transport costs time, rather than saves time or doesn't matter time wise.

This is a reasonable premise. Because a car is point to point and public transport by definition is not. I agree it is possible to maneuver yourself into a situation where you live immediately next to the subway stop and your job is immediately next to the other subway stop. Public transport will save time then. But that's very rare and also a fragile setup because as soon as you change either home or job, it's no longer true.

So for most people public transport means walking to the nearest stop, taking the subway/bus and then walking to the destination. So yes it takes more time.

Re: People hate the idea of car-free cities until they live in one

#312

Post by Ostrogoth »

maxsilver wrote: post #238
moberemk wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first thought looking at that first "new suburb" photo was: where's the sidewalk? And the second photo has sidewalks but no visible amenities. Sure they're denser, and townhouses are at least less materials-intensive to build, but I'm curious how this is otherwise an improvement on the old planning model of swathes of detached homes?

> I'm curious how this is otherwise an improvement on the old planning model of swathes of detached homes? It's not. (Or at least, I'm not arguing it's better). My only point is that "more density" isn't the magic bullet fix people sometimes think it is -- because the US is doing a lot more density than we historically have in the past 60-ish years, and it's not meaningfully different in terms of lifestyle or plannin…

This is what is happening in the US city I reside in. Developers are gobbling up land and putting in “high density” housing, but without building any additional amenities or restructuring roads that make the area more enjoyable to live in. And this is in a city with very libertine zoning rules, so mixed use is not restricted. The price/foot is about the same for the higher density housing as it is for a house and a yard just a 10-20 min drive further out, so given the choice between high density/no amenities/no parking/not walkable/surrounded by high speed roads vs a house with a yard and a garage (will have to drive in either scenario)…I’ll take the bigger house and the yard.

Re: People hate the idea of car-free cities until they live in one

#313

Post by jjav »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #143
bombcar wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the crux of the matter - when people worked at a company for life, they could build their life around it. If you know you’ll be commuting to The Factory for the next forty years, you can happily take the bus or train or whatever to it. You buy your house and put down roots. Now cities are larger and your job changes every five to seven years and either you move each time to be near enough, or you let your fam…

>> If you know you’ll be commuting to The Factory for the next forty years That was not the norm historically. Average job tenure is longer now that it was in the past. And the typical manufacturing facility lasted nowhere near forty years. The average lifespan of a factory is around 10 years. Most companies aren't around for forty years.

> That was not the norm historically. Average job tenure is longer now that it was in the past.

Stats on that?

The norm for most people used to be to work for the same company most of their career (if not all of it) and retire from there with a pension.

Nowadays most people change jobs every couple years.

Re: People hate the idea of car-free cities until they live in one

#314

Post by jjav »

baq wrote: post #177
lucumo wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about "everything". I'm talking about jobs. Your job. Is your job so generic that almost everybody in your country can do it? Because that's what you would need for this to be realistic. Everybody living so close to enough jobs of the exact type they desire. Not just a job title, but the industry, the size and type of company, the salary level, the type of people, and a bunch of other things. And even…

You're so focused on driving I feel you're missing the point of designing the space so driving isn't necessary. Your axiom is 'work is far away'. But the point is it only happens if it's convenient to be far away. Design your city in a way it's convenient to be nearby and it'll be nearby. The problem is this design is completely at odds with private car ownership.

> Design your city in a way it's convenient to be nearby and it'll be nearby.

How can you possibly have every job be nearby to everyone? That's just not possible. Now factor in job changes or even career changes. Unless your primary criteria for picking a job is to have it nearby, the probability of having jobs far from home approaches 100% over time.

Re: People hate the idea of car-free cities until they live in one

#315

Post by rufus_foreman »

jjav wrote: post #313
rufus_foreman wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> If you know you’ll be commuting to The Factory for the next forty years That was not the norm historically. Average job tenure is longer now that it was in the past. And the typical manufacturing facility lasted nowhere near forty years. The average lifespan of a factory is around 10 years. Most companies aren't around for forty years.

> That was not the norm historically. Average job tenure is longer now that it was in the past. Stats on that? The norm for most people used to be to work for the same company most of their career (if not all of it) and retire from there with a pension. Nowadays most people change jobs every couple years.

>> The norm for most people used to be to work for the same company most of their career (if not all of it) and retire from there with a pension

Stats on that?

That absolutely was not the norm. Again, most companies did not exist long enough for someone to work at one for their entire career. Median job tenure 40 years ago was around 4 years (BLS).

A minority of private workers were covered by pensions at the highest point, and being covered by a pension plan did not mean you got a pension. A company might have required 30 years of service to get a pension. Work there 29 years and 11 months, get fired, no pension. Work somewhere ten years and then decide you hate it? Either work there another 20 years hating it or quit and lose your pension. Job hop for a raise every few years? No pension. Many pensions were not adjusted for inflation. Many pension plans went bankrupt. Pensions sucked. I know, I have one from the 90's. Worked there 7 years, that pension is going to pay me roughly the same monthly amount as I will be able to take from my last year's contributions to my 401K, even if those contributions make no investment returns before I retire.

I have no idea how young people get these fantasy ideas about the past. And do you really want to work in the same place for 40 years? A 401K is better than a pension. A 401K, Roth IRA and HSA is immensely better than a pension.

Re: People hate the idea of car-free cities until they live in one

#316

Post by tejohnso »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #200
throw0101d wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> […] and personal liberty. Ironic given that driving is not a right—you need a license—and is highly regulated (e.g., insurance), while you can walk and cycle without any of those things. A cop can stop you in an automobile and ask for all sorts of documents, while doing the same walking or on a bus/tram/subway would probably be against most countries' constitutions. See the Oh the Urbanity video '“15-Minute City” C…

> while you can walk and cycle without any of those things. A few years ago a driver making a right-on-red bumped me in the crosswalk with his car. It was reckless but whatever no harm no foul. But then he got out, incorrectly thinking he had the right of way, and demanded my "papers." He was incredulous and furious that I didn't have insurance papers to show him, or thought I was refusing to. He ended up calling 911…

Probably just trying to frighten or intimidate. Someone else could easily have been fooled into thinking they needed papers. The guy could've berated them into tears. Probably just about all he was attempting to do.

Re: People hate the idea of car-free cities until they live in one

#317

Post by jjav »

ethanbond wrote: post #33
tejohnso wrote: post #12

Not even sure how you'd start off hating the idea. Less noise, less pollution, shorter commute, cheaper infrastructure, more green, more walking, improved health...I mean...just off the top of my head I'm thinking of tons of advantages. I can't think of a single disadvantage. The only reason I need a car is because the city / neighbourhood is configured around the expectation that everyone has a car.

Yeah basically the reason is that people are imagining their current built environment, which (especially in the US) is often solely and exclusively designed for automobiles, and imagine it without cars. It’d be a legitimate nightmare. What we need is gradual but rather aggressive pressure against cars that allow cities to adapt their services and layout. Congestion taxes and getting rid of parking are really great f…

> getting rid of parking are really great first steps

Getting rid of parking in an area where people need cars is the worst possible early step. If you've ever lived in such an area you'd know the chaos it ensures.

The way to do it is to make alternatives be more attractive. Most people don't actually want to spend the money on cars and insurance and maintenance. So if you build infrastructure to make alternatives be cheaper and easier, lots of people will use them, organically reducing car usage without forcing misery on anyone.

Re: People hate the idea of car-free cities until they live in one

#318

Post by exe34 »

scarygliders wrote: post #211
exe34 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need a car, you want a car. Plenty of people live without cars. Even outside cities.

This is entirely incorrect. The small village I live in, in Scotland? The really crappy and unreliable public transport? Yep. I need a car if I want to get to the Reasonably Priced Supermarkets and transport the weekly shopping back home conveniently, for example. Or if I need to travel to Place of Work/customer sites. And then there's the long trips around the country when I want to embark on them. So please. Don't…

Who's making you live there?

Re: People hate the idea of car-free cities until they live in one

#319

Post by exe34 »

slothtrop wrote: post #77
exe34 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need a car, you want a car. Plenty of people live without cars. Even outside cities.

It's far more cumbersome outside of cities because of distance/time and unreliable alternate transportation. It might as well not even be an option, if one decides to go without then they are consciously absorbing the inconvenience because it's an important ideological issue to them.

No they're choosing to live somewhere.

Re: People hate the idea of car-free cities until they live in one

#320

Post by jjav »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #315
jjav wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That was not the norm historically. Average job tenure is longer now that it was in the past. Stats on that? The norm for most people used to be to work for the same company most of their career (if not all of it) and retire from there with a pension. Nowadays most people change jobs every couple years.

>> The norm for most people used to be to work for the same company most of their career (if not all of it) and retire from there with a pension Stats on that? That absolutely was not the norm. Again, most companies did not exist long enough for someone to work at one for their entire career. Median job tenure 40 years ago was around 4 years (BLS). A minority of private workers were covered by pensions at the highest…

> Work somewhere ten years and then decide you hate it? Either work there another 20 years or quit and lose your pension.

That's not usually how it worked.

> I have a pension from the 1990's. Worked there 7 years. I'll get around $150 a month when I retire

As you yourself note. You didn't lose your pension by leaving after 7 years, you still get it. Sure it's minimal because you only worked there 7 years instead of 40 but you didn't lose it.

> I have no idea how young people get these fantasy ideas about the past.

I wish I was that young but I also will eventually receive a pension from a company where I worked for a few years in the early 90s. It'll be like $100 but I only worked there a few years.

Post reply on HN