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

131–140 of 576 posts

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

#131

Post by lambdasquirrel »

spamizbad wrote: post #42

I always thought it was strange when people would say "The automobile represent freedom". I grew up in a "streetcar suburb" and later moved to a big city. So for me, cars were always viewed as an expensive annoyance you might need depending on your life circumstances, but certainly not something you'd go out of your way to buy unless you needed it. But as I got older and lived briefly in a suburb of Houston TX it fin…

I think the original idea behind the suburb is that you don't have to interact with anyone you don't want to interact with. A much nicer way of saying that is they are more efficient. Or at least that was the original intention. The layout of the subdivision is that maximizes the lawn space you get, for the amount of routing (e.g. traffic intersections) to whatever your destination was. And since driving is nominally the fastest way to get somewhere, the suburbs were how you were going to do it. It's like someone decided on the efficiency goal, and looked at what was the fastest means of transport, and derived from there.

Maybe you could say there might've been some redlining too – just put the folks you don't want to interact with in that subdivision over there –, but in all, the problem is that it ultimately becomes: only efficient at one thing, and that's getting to work and back home. And it got terrible even just for that because cars as a means of transport doesn't scale well with population. Then public transit becomes a hack to try to make it work. In the Bay Area and DC, you have highly efficient transit systems that are good for getting to downtown, and pretty much terrible at most other things. In both places, you still need cars for the last mile, when you're leaving "downtown." In the Bay Area, only the Mission District is truly walkable, of all the non-downtown neighborhoods it connects. So now there's car sharing at most of the BART stations. But at least we have them. Not sure if there are any for the Caltrain.

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

#132

Post by dont__panic »

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…

We might be missing each other's points!

In suburbs, those stroads are essential to get people from place to place. IMO that "essential" ends at the edge of a city -- at high density, cars selfishly dominate public spaces, and actually detract from that environment's utility. It's a scalability problem; single occupancy cars can only move so much meat. Walking + biking + transit can move a lot more meat in a dense space.

I think a lot of people do want those suburban environments even today. I'm not sure many people want today's US city center environment that has been compromised by the car.

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

#133

Post by massysett »

I always snicker at these "built for cars" screeds, as though the "cars" are empty self-serving machines that are fulfilling their own needs.

Every car has at least one person in it. That person is going shopping, going to work, socializing, etc., or servicing the needs of others - my plumber's van is essential so that he can fix my plumbing.

So no, places are not "built for cars" - they are built to satisfy human needs, and it turns out that cars are an excellent way to do that.

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

#134

Post by badpun »

jimmaswell wrote: post #121
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 work from home. I'd still rather drive most of the time than rely on transit and live anywhere more dense. E-biking is nice and I do it for exercise often, but I wouldn't want to do it in the snow or rain, even with perfect separate bike lanes, no matter how much Netherlanders insist it's no big deal. My car has a comfortable seat, good sound system, a lot of my stuff in it, climate control, and no drug addicts acc…

> I work from home. I'd still rather drive most of the time than rely on transit and live anywhere more dense. E-biking is nice and I do it for exercise often, but I wouldn't want to do it in the snow or rain, even with perfect separate bike lanes, no matter how much Netherlanders insist it's no big deal.

Yep. Not to mention, biking excludes a lot of people and is pretty ableist to be honest. I for one get sick very easily and having to bike during snow/rain seasons would mean I'm having a permanent low-mid grade cold.

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

#135

Post by [deleted] »

massysett wrote: post #133

I always snicker at these "built for cars" screeds, as though the "cars" are empty self-serving machines that are fulfilling their own needs. Every car has at least one person in it. That person is going shopping, going to work, socializing, etc., or servicing the needs of others - my plumber's van is essential so that he can fix my plumbing. So no, places are not "built for cars" - they are built to satisfy human ne…

[deleted]

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

#136

Post by tmh88j »

oldnetguy wrote: post #62

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 spent looking over your shoulder. I don't understand the desire to be around people just for the sake of it. I'd rather live on the quiet "un-walkable" outskirts or suburbs of a city and occasionally go in if I need to. More than anything I hate the lack of privacy that comes with city life.

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

#137

Post by bmismyname »

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 hope it's a trend, but I think it's more likely that the government will do everything it can to do what's most profitable for the biggest lobbyists. Cars create a huge amount of pointless fake economic activity and bullshit jobs that will never go away.

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

#138

Post by kennend3 »

warning26 wrote: post #64
datadata wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you tie housing costs to cars?

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 north america was more a post-WWII design?

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

#140

Post by aikinai »

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…

This is exactly why I live outside the US in a country with walkable urban communities suitable for families, even though there are far fewer career opportunities and much lower compensation. I keep thinking about going to the US for the career boost and doubled pay, but just can't stomach the thought of driving everywhere to do anything, especially with kids.
Post reply on HN