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

501–510 of 576 posts

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

#501

Post by atwood22 »

microtherion wrote: post #394
atwood22 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, you don't have kids so you just don't get it. I didn't get it either before I had a kid. All of the reasons you listed, bad public transport, dangerous biking, safety, etc. have nothing to do with why I want to buy an SUV. There are just so many items involved with raising a child. Yes, you might be able to take public transit so your kid can see the doctor, as long as you time it to be at an off-peak time, bu…

You realize that people were raising children for millenia before the invention of SUVs, and are still raising children in most of the world without them? I have two children; for most of their childhood we did not have a car at all (though we occasionally rented a midsized one for road trips), now we have a small one. Traveling with a stroller is certainly a hassle, but they do fit on public transit and in small car…

Are you advocating for returning to the way people lived millennia ago? You’re free to do that. I’m going to keep enjoying penicillin.

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

#503

Post by woopwoop »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #430
woopwoop wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty far afield at this point, but while Chicago may not be a developer's paradise, it's substantially better than New York. In any case, though, the original question is whether population density actually makes a place less desirable. The mere fact that Chicago is not cheap (not simply inexpensive, but actually cheap) contradicts the claim that population density is something people don't want.

People want opportunity. Opportunity comes with density. They don't want density for the sake of density. NYC has better opportunities - that's why it's denser. It's not denser because it's more desirable, and then it just so happens that it also has opportunity. This is true for Shenzhen and Beijing and Mexico City and Paris and London and Mumbai and every major city.

I'm not sure we're really disagreeing at this point. Density has a bunch of effects. It creates congestion. But it also creates opportunity. Without the people in New York, there would not be opportunity there. People _wish_ their front door led to downtown Manhattan, and their backdoor led to 100 pristine acres in rural Montana. What people _want_ is what they pay for. And that is to live in places with big network effects, which require large populations.

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

#504

Post by pkulak »

skyyler wrote: post #492
pkulak wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but not on the level of NYC, Chicago, SF, and LA (which actually has decent public transport (for the US), despite the reputation). Yes, then there are cities like Houston, but they are paying for 16-lane urban freeways, which have to at least cancel out any cost savings from not having much public transport.

Do you have any data on this? It seems like a chicken-and-egg problem. Spending on public transit means there's budget for infrastructure. Highways being built means there's budget for infrastructure. Budget for infrastructure means infrastructure gets built. It seems almost... Tautological.

Yeah, my head hurts. May have lost the thread here.

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

#505

Post by mazugrin2 »

barnabee wrote: post #339
criddell wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of anti-car people underestimate how much people like their cars. People spend way more on their car than they need to. It's another thing they can customize and personalize. I'm in central Texas and cars are somewhat necessary because of weather. Not enough businesses have employee showers, so biking or walking is often not a realistic option. I also think if real self-driving cars are developed, it's…

I’m anti-car and I love my car! I drive no more than once or twice a month, to get to the coast or the mountains (or all of Europe via ferry/tunnel) or to move heavy stuff around. It didn’t cost me much but it’s reasonably fast and a joy to drive on country roads. I can’t think of anything worse than having to drive every or even most days, to work or the shops or to see friends. I walk almost everywhere, cycle most…

I lived 22 years without a car in Boston. I finally got one a couple of years ago and also love having it, despite the fact that I only use it about 3 times each month. I don't know if I'm anti-car, but I'm definitely a strong advocate for the vision that cars shouldn't be required to live a full life in more places, especially in the US. In the US, there's so few places where living without a car is feasible, and all of them are incredibly expensive, so clearly there are Americans who want this. But for some reason we still seem to design new communities around the car.

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

#506

Post by bmn__ »

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…

> I don't want to go to the same 5 resturaunts I can walk to.

I have 56 eateries (restaurants, cafés and bistros) in a 500m radius, and also 36 bakeries, butchers and supermarkets all of which offer warm, ready-to-eat meals. Am I a weird outlier?

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

#507

Post by bb88 »

FFRefresh wrote: post #491
FFRefresh wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think with the popular conception/definition of walkability and the assigned importance of that conception is a little over-rated. I personally feel like it overvalues commercial activity (restaurants, retail, grocery, entertainment). Obviously, it depends on how often you want to partake in said commercial activities as far as how you would value it. I would love if the conception of walkability could also take in…

As an extreme example: Times Square in NYC is considered a "Walker's Paradise" with a walkability score of 100 on Walk Score. But it seems like the worst possible place to walk, and most NYC locals I know avoid that area like the plague. Link: https://www.walkscore.com/score/Times-Square-New-York

I agree with this. Having been in times square, it was nothing but being constantly bumped, having to say "No" to people hawking their CD to support their burgeoning music career, and keeping your wallet close by to avoid being pickpocketed.

The strip in Las Vegas is not far behind. While people didn't tend to bump me, there was a never endings series of people trying to get me to buy their prostitutes for the night.

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

#508

Post by closeparen »

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…

There really aren’t “plenty” - slots to live in places like this come up rarely and are fiercely competitive. If you’re not making FAANG money you have no real chance of owning one. And the reason it’s this way is suburban preferences have so dominated government for so long that it is either a historical oddity or an extreme swimming-upstream exception when a walkable neighborhood exists.

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

#509

Post by pkulak »

thehappypm wrote: post #474
pkulak wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Even if someone is in the very top percentage of usage and pays no property tax?

And just to be totally clear; right now no one is paying their fair share for driving, since no one pays a cent to cover their emissions. People who's home has a gasoline engine are just super-duper not paying their share.

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

#510

Post by goodpoint »

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…

> Hot take - walkability is super overrated. I don't want to go to the same 5 resturaunts I can walk to.

Not only a walkable city will provide you with some 50 restaurants at 10-15 minutes by feet, but what is more important is having groceries and other household shops at 5 minutes.

> In my current suburb I am good friend with all of my neighbors. We share vegetables from our gardens, have block parties, let children play together, it's extremely social.

All of this often happens in walkable cities as well.

Post reply on HN