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

451–460 of 576 posts

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

#451

Post by asdff »

nightski wrote: post #441
psyc wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's fine. It's fine to own a car and use it for those things. What is absurd is using a 4000lb hunk of steel to go 2 miles down the road to get a gallon of milk, which is how the bulk of car centric america operates. The vast majority of the energy spent is just to move the vehicle.

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

#452

Post by dang »

paulmd wrote: post #445
econonut wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

You posted this comment once, it was flagged by users, and you deleted it. If your intention was to post a new version that didn't break the site guidelines, I think that's probably ok (albeit borderline). But in that case you should have removed this too:

> Love the "gosh if you want to eat we need to fund lifestyle ruralism with billions of dollars of infrastructure annually" whataboutism, like that's supposed to be some kind of a gotcha

That's obviously against the site guidelines. Please make your substantive points without doing that in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#453

Post by TheCoelacanth »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #362
closeparen wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you build a family you need 3 bedrooms and probably don’t have $1.8 million for such a condo. But the reason condos cost so much per square foot is regulation. Fundamentally, they should be cheaper than comparable houses.

>But the reason condos cost so much per square foot is regulation. Can you cite any specific examples of such regulations here? I currently live in a condo that was converted over from an apartments (quite common). If anything, the reason a condo might cost more per square foot is that smaller houses cost more per sqft period (less sqft to 'divide' fixed expenses across).

Most areas in the US have regulations along the lines of "Ratio of floor area to size of lot must be no higher than X, must have at least Y parking spots per unit, building must be no taller than Z stories" which greatly increases the cost of multi-family housing units.

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

#454

Post by asdff »

bobthepanda wrote: post #413
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is mostly a problem with postwar urbanism. Older regions of the country will have neighborhoods that retain some local business activity.

The fact that it is hard if not impossible to develop this style of neighborhood is still a problem. Every passing year is another one in which old buildings are redeveloped and the US population grows, increasing market pressure.

Sometimes that old building is a tire shop and the new building is a 5 story apartment with ground floor commercial space, though.

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

#455

Post by ryukafalz »

dont__panic wrote: post #249
jimmaswell wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> If they can't walk, I suspect assisted living is the only option.

No, as mentioned in my sibling comment (and in the post you linked to earlier!) bike infrastructure also helps people who can't walk. Mobility scooters work fine on a bike path and people who can't walk (or have trouble walking) are among those who would use one.

You just need your city design to accommodate it. Bike paths help, as do ramps into buildings or ground-level entrances.

(I really wish we could popularize a term other than "bike lanes" for these in the US to acknowledge that they're useful for far more than just bikes.)

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

#456

Post by odiroot »

kiba wrote: post #120
umvi wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in highly walkable, pro-transit areas. It does have benefits, don't get me wrong. The flip side of the coin is that those areas usually have high population density. That comes with a lot of its own cons - noise pollution, air pollution, annoying neighbors you can hear and smell through your walls, etc. To avoid these cons, a lot of Americans want their own house on their own property and doing that means…

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.

> Noise and air pollution are in part caused by cars

Having lived in a Berlin Altbau flat, in a dense central neighbourhood, I can say that's not the biggest problem. At least not when at home.

Crappy neighbours are. For both noise and smells.

Techno blasting behind the wall. Arguing families and shrieking children, through the wide open windows. Passionate cigarette and weed smokers (plenty of them in Berlin). Smoke from cooking wafting through the Hof.

This is even a bigger problem if you are unlucky to have to live in a commie block (pretty much anywhere in Central Europe). Even more neighbours, even denser.

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

#457

Post by giantrobot »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #380
giantrobot wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your supposed easily solved problems run up against cost or local building codes. Apartments tend to suck because builders put the bare minimum amount of work/cost necessary to get a building up to code. They have shit insulation because it's cheap but up to code. They have bad ducting and poor ventilation because it's cheap but up to code. The building codes are generated more from danger avoidance and other liabili…

They spec cheap insulation and whatnot because after every party that they're legally required to do business (a dozen item long list of licensed trades and government entities) with gets their pound of flesh that's all there's money left for.

So the poor builder is being gutted by regulations and paying licensed labor? If not for those obscene costs they would use better more expensive materials?

How can you possibly believe such a thing? That is just an outright foolish assertion. The labor cost to build something to code is the same regardless of the quality of materials. Builders skimp on materials to pad their margins. Even if they used cheaper unlicensed labor there's no impetus to use more expensive materials.

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

#458

Post by asdff »

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?

All of them with an ebike and bike infrastructure. Hell, a golf cart would be an improvement due to the efficiencies of moving a smaller mass to get to your point A and Bs. Many nursing communities in Florida are in fact golf cart centric. I'd rather have the elderly in command of something that only goes 20mph and weighs 40 lbs than something that is capable of factors more that speed at orders of magnitudes more weight.

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

#459

Post by asdff »

aerostable_slug wrote: post #333
dont__panic wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> If they can't walk, I suspect assisted living is the only option. This is just a terrible take. I have wrecked knees and there are times when I can't walk any significant distance, and I'm not even 50 years old. The f-cars people reek of ableism and it gets really tired, and I'm not even speaking from a position as a disabled person (more like occasionally inconvenienced).

It's only ableist if your community is built solely around the car with no alternatives for these people who rely on cars for mobility due to these issues.

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

#460

Post by mancerayder »

__derek__ wrote: post #285
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…

> 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 rules, and in American cities it seems chaos and lawlessness are embraced as tolerance and compassion. Have you lived in a rural area? If not, you should find a way to try it out before taking the leap. City f…

Vehicles at 2am? That sounds like a step above 24 hours a day.
Post reply on HN