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

#231

Post by kuschku » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:18 PM UTC

gautamdivgi wrote: post #85

refurb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spent time in Singapore where living in dense high rises and traveling on a very well run public transit system is commonplace. Same thing. I found that people who could afford cars bought them for the convenience (despite the 100% import duty and $100,000 COE charge for 10 year permit). And same with detached housing. It’s was pretty much the ideal for families. Constant complaints of noise in apartment buildings,…

Kids are noisy and have plenty of energy. You don’t want to be staying below me in an apartment building. The noise of my 2 kids jumping and running around would drive you nuts. And oh - they will have friends over as well. And if they’re doing band or music practice - oh boy :) Yeah - they could go out. But they’ll come back in and its messy and noisy everywhere. It’s just the way kids are. I guess folks need to be…

I'd have no problem with having you as my neighbor. Living in a German brick apartment building, when my neighbor has his subwoofer on maximum, I can still barely hear it over the sound of my own breath.

I can watch movies at cinema reference volume at home at 3am and my neighbors don't notice it either.

Your problem isn't with apartment buildings, it's with shoddy american construction standards.

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

#232

Post by ryukafalz » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:19 PM UTC

dixie_land wrote: post #157

scottLobster wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So as a two car millennial American family that makes regular trips into our city center, we never use our cars going into the city. It's just stressful, streets are narrow, parking's expensive and car-jacking and vandalism are more likely. Just makes more sense to take the bus, cheaper too when you count the cost of parking. I also like having places to walk to from my house. That said, I like having my own house wi…

I'd take it further and argue city centers should not be for residential use to begin. Cities can be built like a huge huge shopping mall, you park outside and do your work, enjoy your shopping etc, you don't have to live there.

No, this would be disastrous for cities. Downtown businesses depend heavily on foot traffic, and you’re going to get a lot more of that if there are people living nearby.

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

#233

Post by neither_color » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:19 PM UTC

jaywalk wrote: post #39

Invictus0 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly think that most Americans have not traveled enough to realize there is a better way. Only 30% of Americans even have a passport.

I've traveled to plenty of cities where many/most people don't own cars, in the US and Europe. I still have zero desire to live in such a city.

Same, everyone has this loaded idea that as soon as you visit a city out of the US it's a utopia. "Walkable-city" often means taking 2-4 different forms of transportation to get from A to B, and if you're going to 5 different places in a day before coming home(say class, the gym, the grocery store, a specific store for that one thing you need today, then dinner with a friend) it means carrying 1-2 bags with you all day and making 15 different metro line transfers, buses, etc and dealing with inclement weather and rush hour crowds where you can't get a seat. Have you ever been in a city with one of the largest metro systems in the world and had to physically push and get pushed into a rush hour metro car that's so packed you can't even get your phone out of your pocket on a ~38C day?

I have a feeling a lot of this sentiment is driven by digital nomads who booked a hostel next to a wework and do nothing but go to a coworking space for half the day then sightseeing and get the impression that everyone lives like this. I've stayed in more than one world class city and if you can afford it you eventually just start taking a lot more ubers than you'll care to admit.

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

#234

Post by dividefuel » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:21 PM UTC

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…

Yeah, I have yet to live in an apartment with a sense of community. In the apartments I lived in, neighbors barely acknowledged each other. I lived in one complex for six years and couldn't tell you the names of any neighbor: most folks just quietly walked in, shut their door, and stayed inside. When I moved to the suburbs, I actually had more community, as neighbors actually came to introduce themselves when we moved in, and they still happily make small talk when we cross paths.

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

#235

Post by woopwoop » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:21 PM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #210

woopwoop wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manhattan does not sit atop some massive pile of natural resources. Opportunity is great there exactly because there are so many people. Network effects are large. By the way, I do not think New York is expensive because it is desirable. It is expensive because it is desirable, there aren't enough places to live, and they aren't building more because of regulations. But it would not be expensive if no one wanted to l…

This is satire, right? NYC is located at the mouth of the Hudson and one end of Long Island sound, two relatively sheltered waterways. For hundreds of years this facilitated huge amounts of resource extraction from the region. Upon this resource extraction economy resource processing was built. Naturally it was located where the labor was the the products flowed through, the port. From there industrialization and an…

We are in agreement. In the past, natural resources were important for New York's population growth. Today, they are irrelevant, and the value of New York is in the network effects, which are due to the large population. "This is satire, right?" is a funny thing to write in a comment that doesn't contradict what I wrote at all.

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

#236

Post by kuschku » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:21 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #69

gernb wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine. They just need to start paying for their externities and stop relying on being subsidized by the dense urban areas. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI

They are. Via the same mechanisms - taxes paid to the county, who maintains that property. Plus, suburbanites bring a lot of money into the cities, even though they don't live there. Cities could incorporate suburbs into their boundaries, yet cities don't want to do that, because despite griping about their lack of paying city taxes, they don't want to pay to maintain/manage those spaces. I really believe the "suburb…

If suburbs were truly paying for themselves, cities would love to incorporate them. As they do in countries where transit oriented suburbs actually do pay for themselves.

The truth is that row houses is the lowest density that still can just barely pay for maintenance of the roads, sewers, water lines, gas lines, electricity lines, and everything else.

Any lower density than that, and the taxes of the residents can't cover the actual costs anymore.

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

#237

Post by FigurativeVoid » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:21 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…

This was my experience to a tee. I had been commuting about 80 minutes a day for work. Then we had the pandemic. I have been at a fully distributed company, and I love it. You would have to pay me an extraordinary amount to give up the quality of life I have working from home.

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

#238

Post by mjevans » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:22 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #173

kiba wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Noise and air pollution are in part caused by cars. Meanwhile in the suburb, you have lawn mowers and leaf blowers, which I absolutely hate with a passion. I don't know about annoying neighbors and smells. That seems to be a design and engineering issue.

> I don't know about annoying neighbors and smells. If you live in a lower income area, get used to your condo/townhouse occasionally smelling like marijuana and/or tobacco whenever the neighbors decide to hotbox. Also get used to arguments and loud music late at night on weekends. > That seems to be a design and engineering issue. I'm sure you could build hermetically and acoustically sealed condos that keep out all…

Sounds like Minimum Code (building) isn't good enough.

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

#239

Post by n8cpdx » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:22 PM UTC

steve-benjamins wrote: post #181

mancerayder wrote: post #84

High density is for young people. I've lived in ultra high density for decades and it's starting to really hurt. I sleep poorly due to noise (mostly from neighbors) and it's not fun to go for a walk anymore. I'm looking for a rural place to purchase a home because sorry, I just don't want to tolerate people's selfishness anymore. Density should come with more rules, both laws that are enforced as well as cultural rul…

What city is this?

I read it and assumed Portland. Courts have been letting people walk for things like race-based hate crime (think assaulting a young girl on her bike for being Japanese American).

Another example, police arrest a guy for assault, jail/courts let him out before figuring out who he is.

Others say it is a straw man, but it isn’t when you’re living it.

Receipts:

https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2022/07/07/portland-mayor-...

https://www.koin.com/news/crime/ppb-seeks-help-iding-assault...

Edit: I’m an urbanist and I want nearly everyone to live in a city; but that isn’t a reasonable ask until cities are safe, clean, quiet (as can be; aka rules for noise pollution are enforced), and furnished with usable amenities like parks. It pains me to say it, but the current trend for US cities is not it.

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

#240

Post by ocschwar » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:22 PM UTC

Xeoncross wrote: post #60

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…

Keep in mind that the US is only about 10% smaller than all of Europe combined. While I would love more walking/biking friendly cities, what about all the rural areas? It would take millions and millions of buses or train connections to get to all the places I drive and would still be more of a hassle than just driving there myself plus I couldn't pick the scenic routes. People in major cities have different needs th…

Take a look at European rural areas some time.

1. Commercial production of food and timber begins literally at the city line around most European cities. There's not the ring of suburban hellsscape. One one block, there's a city. And the next, farms begin.

2. Rural European villages are also compactly built. If you work for farmers or just want to live among farmers, you still might not need a car for your daily necessities.

3. Even if you are a farmer, you have the option of living in the village and commuting to your fields. Your machine barn is also right near the village, which means you are not the only person watching it day to day. And since you commute to your fields, leasing them to your neighbor for a season is easily done as a matter of course. Want to take a sabbatical? Walk next door, sign some papers. Done.

Europe does farm country better too.