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

441–450 of 576 posts

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

#441

Post by nightski »

psyc wrote: post #428
nightski wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> the same 5 resturaunts In my case you'd be off by at least an order of magnitude. You like variety, eh? I mean.. I can get any kind of cuisine at all that can be found in a big city... Not sure what suburbia has to offer on top of that. I mean, you do you. Just saying your argument could maybe use an accuracy adjustment.

I do more than just restaurants you know. We like to visit state parks, bike trails and get out into nature.

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

#442

Post by cvhashim »

sokoloff wrote: post #328
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…

Life is very short. If living in a walkable city is a major goal of yours, just move to one now rather than waiting and hoping your not-walkable city will transform itself. First of all, it probably won’t. But more importantly, even if it does, 20% or more of your remaining healthy lifespan will elapse while it’s happening. Don’t wait. Carpe deambulatio.

My old boss packed up his family and moved from the Midwest US to London after he joined a new company that had offices there. Seems like a lot of folks from the states are moving to Europe.

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

#443

Post by nightski »

marci wrote: post #431
nightski wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bike thousands of miles a year. I love it. I also don't want to bike to grocery stores and restaurants. Sweaty in the summer, and we get -30F in the winter and our city tends to be very windy with wind chills down to -60F.

A walkable city means groceries stores at a walkable distance, which means while walking home from wherever you were, you just buy a couple of things missing for tonight's diner. You're at home, no more sugar for a cake? just a 5 min round trip.

Ironically even in my suburb we have 3 grocery stores about a mile away each. But I only like going to the store once a week. Daily would be a waste of time.

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

#444

Post by dont__panic »

atwood22 wrote: post #403
dont__panic wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sorry, you don't have kids so you just don't get it. I know you prefaced this with "sorry" but this is incredibly condescending. You're literally starting your argument with "it is impossible for you to empathize" -- but I have plenty of friends and family members with children and very much understand your struggle. Have a little more faith. Your "very basic example" is exactly the kind of niche case trip where I…

I find it extremely condescending to say you understand and empathize with something you have no direct experience with. Like put your money with your mouth is. Instead of telling people to live a certain way, live that way yourself and get back to me. Imagine we were talking about something else, say race, instead of of child rearing. Would you really consider the opinion of a white person saying “I understand the e…

Please be respectful in your comment responses. I'm merely suggesting that you could raise a single child without a giant SUV. Child rearing and race are not the same experience. To imply as much is disrespectful to people who suffer as a result of racism in our world. It sounds like you have a lot of baggage to work out, I hope things get better for you.

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

#445

Post by paulmd »

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…

[flagged]

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

#446

Post by ryandrake »

hardnose wrote: post #247
Steltek wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

These "Cars Bad" articles are always written from the perspective of people who live in cities, and like city living. If you live in Chicago or NYC or SF, of course we should have fewer SFHs, more apartments, fewer cars, use mass transit, make things walkable, and so on. It's hard to disagree with that.

But if you live in a county with 50 people per square mile, none of these things make sense. Cars are basically required, apartments don't make sense, mass transit is nonexistent, and nothing is walkable, and that's often why people move there.

I like the USA because you can choose where to live. If you want to live in a concrete honeycomb, walk everywhere, take the subway, great! Move to the city! If you want to depend on a car and live where you can't even see your neighbor's house let alone hear it, great! Move to the country! One choice is not objectively better for everyone.

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

#447

Post by dont__panic »

ejb999 wrote: post #407
sokoloff wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life is very short. If living in a walkable city is a major goal of yours, just move to one now rather than waiting and hoping your not-walkable city will transform itself. First of all, it probably won’t. But more importantly, even if it does, 20% or more of your remaining healthy lifespan will elapse while it’s happening. Don’t wait. Carpe deambulatio.

>>Life is very short. If living in a walkable city is a major goal of yours, just move to one now rather than waiting and hoping your not-walkable city will transform itself. I agree, and not really sure why there are so many posts on this topic on HN - there are plenty of places to move and live if you want to be someplace where you can walk to or bike to. There are also plenty of places where you can move to, buy a…

Immigration is difficult, expensive, and isolates you from your family and friends. I don't think it's surprising that people born in the USA are frustrated that they must immigrate to life the lifestyle they want.

You might say that the people who want to drive cars everywhere are telling the walkability folks how to live. I just want to live in a walkable and bikeable place where I'm safe from aggressive car drivers within a few hours of friends and family. That place sadly does not exist. Would it be so wild to make a few neighborhoods in the US a bit more human-centric and a bit less car-centric? It doesn't have to change everything. Just a small number of cities and towns.

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

#448

Post by carapace »

ylhert wrote: post #9

The car has done so much damage to our world and most people are completely blind to it. Obesity, climate change, isolation/loneliness, excess deaths/injuries from collisions, out of control housing costs, can all be tied back in a major way to car centric society. And yet people will defend their car and the "convenience" of it like their life depends on it, and force it down the throats of everyone around them. Bog…

If it helps, it's the result of a deliberate domestic propaganda campaign. I usually point to "The Real Reason Jaywalking Is A Crime" (Adam Ruins Everything) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxopfjXkArM for the story.

We can see what traffic was like just as motorized carriages began to mix with pedestrians and horses. Here is "San Francisco, a Trip down Market Street, April 14, 1906" upscaled and colorized: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO_1AdYRGW8

You can see that, at low speeds and modest density, carriages and pedestrians flow together just fine. Although I'm sure there were still lots of accidents, everyone is more-or-less sharing the space. You can already see the problem brewing: horseless carriages can accelerate much faster than horse-drawn carriages.

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

#449

Post by wizofaus »

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…

So what you want is your regular 4 or 5 cafes/ restaurants/pubs you can walk to, and use PT or a car on the rarer occasion you wanna try something different. It doesn't mean walkability is overrated. For things like minor grocery shops or the post office or even hairdressers/barbers variety is surely not that important anyway.

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

#450

Post by wizofaus »

nightski wrote: post #418
april_22 wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say bikeability is the best. If you live in any quiter regions of most mid- to large sized cities in western europe and scandinavia you will have access to a huge variety of possibilites, restaurants, bars etc. and can access everything relaviely quick, while living in a quiet area. Biking is also fun imo.

I bike thousands of miles a year. I love it. I also don't want to bike to grocery stores and restaurants. Sweaty in the summer, and we get -30F in the winter and our city tends to be very windy with wind chills down to -60F.

I'd love to be able to bike to restaurants, but it would mean convincing the rest of the family to do the same! Any trip I can take on my own I do by bike though, providing there's somewhere safe to lock it up.
Post reply on HN