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

471–480 of 576 posts

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

#471

Post by DanTheManPR »

mekoka wrote: post #192

It's not even that they're built for cars. They're simply just not built for humans to walk around. If you've ever been in a situation where you're visiting a friend in an unfamiliar neighborhood and the map is telling you that your destination is physically just "right behind this house", a mere 50m away, but the front street you're currently in is a long crescent without cross access to the back street where you're…

One of the major frustrations I have with my current town is the "last tenth of a mile" that is often disconnected from any sidewalks, or is blocked off with no path through. We're a dense inner ring suburb with a decent selection of stores within 1/4 mile of tens of thousands of people. But for me to walk to the grocery store or dollar store, There are a couple of short sections of the walk where the sidewalk simply ends and I have to walk in the street. Also, a lot of commercial areas will be completely fenced off in the rear, so pedestrians in the residential area behind them have to take a long circuitous path to visit them. There sometimes seems to be no thought given to how pedestrians would access some areas.

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

#472

Post by asdff »

ryukafalz wrote: post #467
asdff wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 we…

There's also the Canta, which you can drive in the bike lanes in the Netherlands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canta_(vehicle) Seats one person and can be adapted for various disabilities (you can wheel a wheelchair into one for example). EDIT: Wait apparently some can seat two! Though I don’t think the wheelchair-adapted one can for space reasons.

That's amazing, and it just goes to show if you allow these things in the regulatory environment (they are not allowed currently), then they will be built and purchased by people who benefit from them. It's just a better tool for a job in 99% of the cases. Using a car for each and every trip you take in your life is like using an excavator, when all you need is a hand trowel.

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

#473

Post by FearlessNebula »

mancerayder wrote: post #461
mtalantikite wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you should move to a rural place, and that's great! There's plenty of that in the US. And it sounds like you live in a place where biking on the sidewalk is legal, which I agree it shouldn't be (it's not here in NYC). But let's not throw away high density living because old people think the kids are making too much noise. As a New Yorker, I prefer the boisterousness of the city, because it sounds like joy…

NYC has an insane number of bikes on the sidewalks, especially e bikes, and especially in Manhattan, and especially in the non touristy areas.

It sucks for pedestrians but I can't blame the bikers when the alternative is getting ran down in streets without bike lanes. But if there's a proper protected bike lane then there's no excuse for being on the sidewalk or going the wrong way.

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

#474

Post by thehappypm »

pkulak wrote: post #266
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

Just because someone is using a resource doesn’t imply they’re not putting in their fair share. Where did you even get that idea?

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

#475

Post by __derek__ »

FFRefresh wrote: post #395
__derek__ wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would I make it up? What a bizarre accusation.

There was no accusation of making up anything, as I cannot possibly know your personal experience. What I was doing was pushing back on using comically outlier events as something representative of rural living, that the GP would have to reckon with if they were to live in a rural setting. Nobody I know who has lived in a rural environment has ever experienced what you highlighted. If you did experience that, it soun…

It's great that you experienced the idyllic version, but note that the phrase "rural area" glosses over a diverse array of places, and that your experience may not be universal.

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

#477

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Panther34543 wrote: post #340
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Town around 50000 is a good bet then. If you can work remotely, find a college town and live outside the center, about a mile. You can bike to anything, take the bus, or just walk. I did this. I have 100 restaurants, too many bars to count, music and theatre (three!) and festivals and arts within trivial distances. No car needed.

Where? A town of 50,000 with 100 restaurants, many bars, and multiple theaters and festivals would be a highly desirable place to live for many, many people. What area were you referring to?

Iowa City, Iowa

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

#478

Post by thehappypm »

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…

My major criticism of living in the city is that everything is just really difficult. Sure, my apartment is only a 15 minute walk to the grocery store, and not a 10 minute drive, but it’s really damn hard to carry a big load of groceries for a mile. My apartment is on the third floor so moving any furniture in or any outdoor gear is a huge hassle. I have nowhere to store anything. I don’t have laundry in my unit. I have shitty heat in the winter. The building has mice. Oh, and this is in a nice part of an expensive city!

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

#479

Post by frumper »

bobthepanda wrote: post #358
frumper wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grocery store doesn't need to be near everyone's home. It just needs to be near your home. Buy a home in a location that suits your needs.

The problem is that the overwhelming majority of land in the US is zoned in such a way where this is not legal, and as a result the relatively few locations that do accommodate this lifestyle have high premiums (both on a per unit and per sq ft basis)

There are plenty of homes near grocery stores in the suburbs. Not every home, but plenty if that's important to you. Location, location, location.

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

#480

Post by throwaway0a5e »

giantrobot wrote: post #457
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unlice…

If Brad the electrician wants to benefit from artificial barriers to entry that keep his job out of reach of Jose that raises the cost floor of a building. Now apply the same effect for every trade. Now add in the cost of dealing with obstinate government. Suddenly there's no money left to spruce up the building beyond the bare minimum and still come out the other side with an end result within the scope of "what the market will bear".
Post reply on HN