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

241–250 of 576 posts

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

#241

Post by trgn »

tmh88j wrote: post #219
trgn wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> too much noise and too much energy spent looking over your shoulder. That's the bane of american cities. They're noisy, and sociopathy is tolerated by the authorities. Living abroad has shown me cities, significantly more dense than the US, that are neither noisy or unsafe. Walkable cities can be quiet, almost eerily so. America needs more urban environments like that.

> Living abroad has shown me cities, significantly more dense than the US, that are neither noisy or unsafe Just because you can find quiet isolated pockets in any given city doesn't mean the rest of it is like that. All cities are loud and require being very aware of your surroundings, some more than others. I've spent months traveling through many European cities and been victim of crime and saw a lot of crime. As…

I guess we were in different places.

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

#242

Post by falcolas »

Xylakant wrote: post #218
pif wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent wrote: > it's simply not economically viable You replied: > t’s just that these small groceries cannot outcompete supermarkets So you are confirming what he said.

No, I’m not. The stores are economically viable unless you have a car centric culture. Car centric culture makes walkable mid-density neighborhoods unviable.

Cars are no longer the only way to bring in goods from outside walking distance. Online orders can also supplant the need for cars in suburbs, while producing a significantly more options than a mom&pop grocery store.

And with Covid restrictions and work-from-home, deliveries and online ordering were cemented as normal behavior.

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

#243

Post by ryukafalz »

jimmaswell wrote: post #203
dont__panic wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recumbent bikes, e-bikes, and other alternatives ( https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/who-else-benef... ) make "bike infrastructure" accessible to pretty much anyone. Considering the fact that it's impossible to live in the USA outside of a nursing home if you lose your ability to drive due to old age... I'm not sure accessibility is a great argument for car-centric infrastructure.

What percentage of people who are too old and disabled to drive a car are fit to ride a bike instead?

You’re replying to a post where the source’s headline image is several people using mobility scooters on a cycle path.

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

#244

Post by kuschku »

twblalock wrote: post #118
timssopomo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that the public at large "wanted" to adjust zoning laws to end up with a car-centric environment. Automakers created the concept of jaywalking [1]. Judges defended the rights of the public to enjoy the streets without cars [2]. Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, GM, and Mack Trucks were convicted of conspiring to monopolize the sale of buses and rela…

The law against jaywalking is an excellent law. Look at some of those colorized YouTube videos of cities in the early 1900s, like this one: https://youtu.be/1Ok_lwYyHWo It’s insanity. People dodging cars, cars dodging people and each other. At modern road speeds that would result in mass death. Besides all that, yes of course we live in a manufactured environment. All environments are manufactured to some degree. And…

That's interesting, do you think the UK is a place with mass death? (It has no laws against jaywalking).

Or Germany? (Crossing a red light is a fine of a few euros, but crossing roads elsewhere is legal).

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

#245

Post by dont__panic »

stormbrew wrote: post #199
dont__panic wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any success filtering for walkability in the US when buying a home? As far as I can tell, "walkability" scores are borderline useless -- the small town I currently live in has extremely low "walkability," despite being able to walk or bike to everything I need, whereas the large city I just left has extremely high "walkability" -- despite the fact that walking around town was not pleasant due to high volumes of car t…

I mean, you just can't have a walkability score for an entire large city. There's a lot of variation. You have to look at specific neighborhoods. This is especially true in north America where cities all went through a huge conglomeration effort in the second half of the 20th century and absorbed their suburbs.

Of course I'm referring to the address I lived at in those places. I'm mostly complaining that Zillow's built-in "walkability" scoring based on addresses is abysmally inaccurate for the places I've lived in.

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

#246

Post by chiefalchemist »

It's not that they were build for cars, it's that they were built for consumption. The car is just one of the key things the paradigm requires.

Got a yard? Now you have to mow it. Add shrubs? Gotta trim those.

Got more living space? Now you have to fill it with more stuff.

Wanna buy a lawn mower and stuff, then get a car.

It's why we're no longer citizens. We're merely consumers, and apparently more than happy to live up to the insulting title.

Neighbors could and would connect, if they weren't so busy running like a rat in the endless wheel of consumption.

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

#247

Post by hardnose »

Steltek wrote: post #177
chrisco255 wrote: post #147

I love the car and car culture. I've road tripped across the U.S. and live in an RV. I will never go back to living in an apartment. There's no human connection there. I spent years living in apartments and maybe met one or two people, with no meaningful connections ever developed. Cars are great for road tripping, and America is highly optimized for it. You can, with the same vehicle, without unpacking once, travel…

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.

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

#248

Post by robbyking »

legitster wrote: post #66

I love dense urban areas, but I'm not sure I buy the human connection angle. I've never felt so alone when living in cities. Something about constantly being surrounded by people makes you less likely to want to get to know them. Now that I live a bit more rural, I've found myself much more likely to get to know people. It helps that things aren't always busy or packed, and I can linger a bit more and have more pleas…

It's interesting, I had the opposite experience. When I lived in SF in my 20's, I knew all of my neighbors: some I'd party with, some I'd walk my dogs with, and later, when I was older, we had a nanny share with the family who lived next door. I knew the brothers that ran the corner store and I knew the family that ran the coffee shop next door.

When I lived in smaller town, I didn't know any of my neighbors. People walked from their side door to their cars and would only say hello if they happened to make eye contact. My wife and I prioritized walkabilty and bikability when we chose our house, but even then it was a struggle.

There are exceptions, but now that I'm back in a city I once again know all of my neighbors. I regularly have lunch with another dev who works from home down the street, and we hang out with the family across the street a few times a week. Our neighborhood isn't the "NYC in the 70's" image of an urban area that some people from small towns think of when they think of big cities, it's cute tree lined block with 2k sqft houses.

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

#249

Post by dont__panic »

jimmaswell wrote: post #203
dont__panic wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recumbent bikes, e-bikes, and other alternatives ( https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/who-else-benef... ) make "bike infrastructure" accessible to pretty much anyone. Considering the fact that it's impossible to live in the USA outside of a nursing home if you lose your ability to drive due to old age... I'm not sure accessibility is a great argument for car-centric infrastructure.

What percentage of people who are too old and disabled to drive a car are fit to ride a bike instead?

They should also be able to walk. If they can't walk, I suspect assisted living is the only option.

Imagine you were diagnosed with epilepsy today, and it was so severe you lost your license to protect others. You can still walk around, take public transit -- probably even ride a bicycle. Where would you live in the USA today?

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

#250

Post by iratewizard »

badpun wrote: post #128
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…

> Selfishly, I really want the USA to bring city centers back to livable levels by banning most cars and redesigning them for humans. Otherwise I'm absolutely going to end up moving to Europe eventually -- likely the Netherlands There isn't a single US city which meets your criteria?

Cities in the US with strong public transit have only ended up building moving toilets for the homeless. There are a number of bigger issues that come first before billions more in public funding goes into larger wheeled toilets.
Post reply on HN