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

#481

Post by FearlessNebula » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 7:42 PM UTC

mtalantikite wrote: post #221

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…

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…

This article is ridiculous drivel. The author's point is basically that complaining about noise is another form of white people oppressing people of color? The author is complaining about being told to quiet down in libraries and homes.

Let me give some perspective on the other side of this situation. In college one year I had 8 AM classes each day of the week which meant that if I wanted to have time to exercise I had to wake up at 6 AM to have time to eat, exercise, and shower. In order to get enough sleep I had to get into bed between 9:00 and 9:30. In college dorms I consistently had to call the RA and file noise complaints because were playing music and talking loudly. Good sleep is essential to your health, your freedom to experience joy by being loud as the author describes does not trump my right to basic peace and quiet. It's the same principle from COVID where people didn't want to wear a mask: your freedom ends where mine starts.

A home or a library is not the place to be loud and boisterous, go to a student cafe or a bar or a restaurant. As somebody who suffers from tinnitus it feels like the same principle of how maddening it can be to never experience silence.

I think a lot of people underestimate the impact that excess noise (and of course lack of sleep as a result of that) can have on your mental health. And of course people just chalk it up to old people complaining about kids. I'm in my 20s.

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

#482

Post by marci » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 7:43 PM UTC

nightski wrote: post #443

marci wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At those distances I would never go buy groceries by foot either.

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

#483

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 7:43 PM UTC

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #416

tmh88j wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 feel the same way. I grew up in an urban environment, moved to rural areas, now back in an urban environment. I can't wait to get out of here. Too many people, too much noise and too much energy spen…

There is a middle ground. Walkable suburbs were commonplace in the pre-war era.

[deleted]

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

#484

Post by wizofaus » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 7:43 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #329

falcolas wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a mix of high density houses and low to medium density apartments Neither of which sounds very nice to me. I don't have a huge yard, but I do have enough yard to raise a few trees and firepit. If I lost that, I might as well be in an apartment. And that still wouldn't provide enough density to support a variety of restaurants and grocery stores (not to mention things like employment for non-techies).

I think the key isn't so much making the single-family homes more dense, but allowing more mixed development mixed into the larger neighborhoods. Take my neighborhood (south Reston, VA). The main road is about 2.5 miles long. There is a strip mall at both ends, leaving homes in the midde just outside easy walking distance (from my house, by footpath, it's nearly 2 miles to one end and a bit over 1.25 to the other). T…

Curious what you rate as "easy walking distance"? 15 min (one way), 30 min? Though I'd think it rather depends on how much you have to carry...

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

#485

Post by FearlessNebula » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 7:44 PM UTC

vangelis wrote: post #347

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…

If not having motorbikes ripping through the streets at 2am is gentrification, so be it.

Yep. The freedom to mod your exhaust systems and blast your stereos does not trump other folks rights to peaceful sleep. Basically somebodies entertainment does not supersede other people's basic biological needs.

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

#486

Post by j-wags » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 7:44 PM UTC

nightski wrote: post #414

soledades wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

im sorry to tell you but this take is simply ignoring the fact the amount of restuaurants you can walk to increases with the square of the density.

I understand there are a few places in America you can live where there are a lot more restaurants densely packed. These also are the highest cost of living places in the world to live. It's not practical to think everyone could live like that. They also are miserable with homeless people, drug addicts, and crime. It also relies on a huge network of people commuting to those jobs to support that area. You can't have…

> They also are miserable with homeless people, drug addicts, and crime.

What aspect of urban development caused these people to be homeless, drug-addicted, or criminal? Did the frequency of bus service get them addicted to drugs? Did the taller building height take their job?

We make this unconscious logical leap that there's some justification for human misery to be concentrated in urban cores. I live in a dense urban core right now, and I see human misery when I go outside. I think "boy, it'd be nice to move to an area where this miserable person isn't". But... it'd be ridiculous to be happy by pretending misery doesn't exist because it's not in eyeshot. If that were the case, we should just ship miserable people to the suburbs where I don't have to see them (that would be cheaper and more convenient for me!). The wealth density of an urban neighborhood is huge, there's easily enough money to relocate miserable people into even rich suburbs.

The better thing to do is to make choices that cause there to be fewer miserable people. I'm optimistic that the current debate around the urban-suburban-rural divide and the role of cars will make us recognize that there's huge mutual interest in the idea that _public spaces should be nice_, and that seeing the misery that results from our policy choices is a feature and not a bug.

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

#487

Post by pandaman » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 7:52 PM UTC

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?

You can live in any decently big city without a car. I know people who live in LA as such. It's just inconvenient and more expensive.

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

#488

Post by dont__panic » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 7:52 PM UTC

TaupeRanger wrote: post #301

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…

Maybe I'm just not exposed to these ideas because I live in the Midwest, but this entire post sounds like some weird borderline clinical phobia of cars and driving that just doesn't jive at all with my experience, except perhaps a hatred of long car commutes. I can't imagine ever hating cars so much that I'd want to move to a new country...

Where do you live in the Midwest? If you don't live in a dense city environment, and you don't walk or bike much, it makes sense that you would struggle to understand the problems with cars linked to that lifestyle.

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

#489

Post by igouy » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 7:53 PM UTC

dividefuel wrote: post #234

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 move…

When you moved into the apartments, did you go and introduce yourselves to your neighbors?

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

#490

Post by alistairSH » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 7:56 PM UTC

wizofaus wrote: post #484

alistairSH wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the key isn't so much making the single-family homes more dense, but allowing more mixed development mixed into the larger neighborhoods. Take my neighborhood (south Reston, VA). The main road is about 2.5 miles long. There is a strip mall at both ends, leaving homes in the midde just outside easy walking distance (from my house, by footpath, it's nearly 2 miles to one end and a bit over 1.25 to the other). T…

Curious what you rate as "easy walking distance"? 15 min (one way), 30 min? Though I'd think it rather depends on how much you have to carry...

My office is close to 1.25 miles, takes about 30 minutes if I don't want to break a sweat. If I'm late, I ride a bike. That's probably the limit for me for regular/frequent trips. I can carry a mid-sized backpack that distance without problem, even with a laptop and a jug of milk or other moderately heavy items inside.

With the number of signaled intersections, I can't drive it any faster than the bike. But definitely faster than walking most of the time (though walking is a guaranteed time - driving that distance has taken 20+ minutes before because of traffic jams).

Basically, if it takes the same or less time than driving, I try to walk or cycle. Sometimes I walk the ~2 miles to CVS or Starbucks, but that's as much recreation as transport - I can drive it in 5 min. Nice to have the option, but if they were closer to 1 mile, I'd always walk.