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

521–530 of 576 posts

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

#521

Post by dangus »

riversflow wrote: post #406
dangus wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Air pollution: Caused by what? Probably cars. Noise pollution: Caused by what? Probably cars. (Sure, some sirens here and there, but rural and suburban living doesn't make you immune to the sounds of train crossings, highways, jake brakes, motorcycles, etc). Annoying neighbors, smell/hearing through walls: 1. Easily mitigated through smart building design and practices, enforced by building code. 2. You can have comp…

Noise pollution: Caused by what? Probably cars . . . rural and suburban living doesn't make you immune to the sound of . . . Noise pollution in the city is just a fact of the population density. Speaking from experience, if you've lived there for some time your hearing won't even be sensitive enough to truly appreciate the difference in a rural area. It's just never going to be In the rural area I live in I can hear…

Rural areas are obviously overall quieter, but that's not very relevant because we can't have 100% of the human population living in rural areas. That's impossible.

My overall point is that cities/suburbs that have fewer cars have less noise, and that reduction of the usage of individual vehicles is a major contributor to city noise. Just compare decibel levels standing in a residential block of the Upper East Side or inside Central Park versus the exit of the Lincoln Tunnel.

The loudest noise ain't coming from the HVAC and elevators, nor the underground subway.

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

#522

Post by stjohnswarts »

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…

You should move to the netherlands then. Not everyone needs to live in a dense concrete jungle. You should -choose- that, though. I understand why you hate cars, so move to the urban center and figure out a way but you don't have a right to force that on me.

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

#523

Post by stjohnswarts »

Steltek wrote: post #294
hardnose wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Those values are totally compatible with dense urban living! I have kids and enjoy all of those things in a walkable/bikeable community (Boston, MA). Most Americans have never seen it work so they think it's impossible. The reality is that it's illegal to build these places and the environment found here was built before NIMBYs strangled it.

I think you are discounting the desires of others. I personally love having my little slice of land. Cooking for myself in my own kitchen. I don't mind a drive every couple of weeks to get some more food. I know all my neighbors and bbq with them occassionally. I don't wish to break up dense city culture, why do you want to break up my preferred suburban culture? Can't we live in peace rather than dumping on each other's life choices?

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

#524

Post by TaupeRanger »

dont__panic wrote: post #488
TaupeRanger wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I lived in a dense city, I wouldn't drive cars except on longer trips and would have no reason to rant about other people using them in normal, legitimate ways.

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

#525

Post by JBlue42 »

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.

Move or ask local candidates what they're willing to do to address the issue.

Usually it takes something bad happening.

I also don't think a lot of the changes people want will be coming to US cities as quickly as they hope. I've worked in the architecture/urban planning world and despite the people doing that work knowing what's best for a city, it's the engineers, politicians, and people with money that end up making the decisions unless there is some very vocal asks. There's also a ton of red tape that stands in the way, especially in CA, of anything being built in a timely, cost-efficient manner.

One can hope though. Small stabs at progress are being made.

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

#526

Post by ahepp »

randcraw wrote: post #415
sleepdreamy wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? Just curious

Ann Arbor MI closed Main Street for the summer months to allow restaurant patrons to sit outside. I think this began during year 2(?) of covid. This especially makes sense in a college town when the students are away (half the population) and the reduced traffic is relatively easy to shunt around the closed off areas. Conversely, Kalamazoo MI closed off a major downtown street year-round around 1975 to encourage foot…

Oh hey, I grew up in Kalamazoo and went to school in Ann Arbor. It's been so long since I lived there I might be remembering wrong, but I just don't remember that much to do on the street in question (compared to somewhere like Ann Arbor). When I lived there, I think it was open to traffic, but a single one-way lane? Parking never seemed to be a problem if you were willing to park a block away.

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

#527

Post by Panzer04 »

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…

It's not an offset if it would have been that way anyway - In other words, you owning/living in a rural area does nothing extra to offset carbon emissions, because that rural area would have offset it regardless.

The infrastructure-to-population cost ratio of urban areas is way, way higher than rural areas. A meter of footpath, road or sewer in a city is reused by (just spitballing numbers) 10x as many people compared to a suburb, and probably 100x vs a rural area. Infrastructure is just much cheaper in cities relative to the served population, because so much less land area needs to be covered.

Since people generally pay the same taxes no matter where they live, the net result is cities generally fund a lot of infrastructure for other areas, as they are so much more efficient.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with this for genuinely rural areas - we do need farms etc, so infrastructure built to serve them is well spent. The issue arises when we sprawl with suburbs, as they don't serve any particular purpose that couldn't be fulfilled by a dense city, but cost much more in terms of infrastructure expense.

I have no problem with people living in suburbs, so long as they bear most of the cost of living that lifestyle, rather than dense urban areas funding them.

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

#528

Post by paulmd »

_ktx2 wrote: post #469
paulmd wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Recreating your post after it was flagged and dead is classless. I'm surprised someone did this so brazenly. I'm not going to respond to all of the points that you raised that I think are false or misleading, but I'll respond to some. > There's a lot of miles of power lines and roads for what is, in the end, maybe 10k people in that county outside the cities/towns. Power plants are (mostly) created in rural areas, so…

> classless

Uncivil, violates site rules. You can express yourself without putdowns.

> I'm not going to respond to all of the points that you raised that I think are false or misleading, but I'll respond to some.

Eh, rather dismissive yourself.

> I grew up near rural areas and lived in one for a bit. I don't know what "infrastructure heavy" you're talking about.

How many miles of roads and power lines in your rural area, divided across how many people?

Again, I very clearly expressed what I meant by "infrastructure heavy", but with you self-admittedly not really being a full and fair participant in the discussion, I can see why you might have some confusion.

> Recreating your post after it was flagged and dead is classless. I'm surprised someone did this so brazenly.

The saying goes that people use the "downvote" like a "disagree" button and when it comes to political debates people use the "flag" button like an "I really really disagree" button. If I don't see a particular reason a post is flagged then yeah, I don't really have a problem with recreating it.

I shouldn't be suppressed by average users for expressing a well-reasoned argument they disagree with, nor censured for a single disagreeable line. Even you yourself cannot avoid technical violations of the site rules, your comment itself is violating the same rules to the same extent as mine.

Realistically, that rule is a "please", as I've been repeatedly told when I point out violations of it, and virtually every comment has something that someone can be offended about. I'm not going out and attacking people here, it's just a "jaywalking" violation that everyone does and people fall back on when they're losing an argument. The strictest interpretation of the rule essentially forbids any sort of "active-voice" argument that's strong enough to make a positive point (because someone can ALWAYS find be offended by any positive point) and that's incredibly harmful to discourse.

If you have a problem, call it out specifically, or get dang, otherwise if people don't bother replying and are just using flags as a way to suppress opinions they disagree with then yeah, I don't really care and I'm not going to be suppressed just because of some meta-gaming from people who disagree with me so little that they can't even reply.

Similarly, I find your "won't respond to the comment because I disagree with it" against the spirit of this community and doesn't belong here either. If you have nothing to say, don't post at all, but "cheerleading" is not constructive or beneficial to the discourse here at all.

Spirit of the rules vs text of the rules, my fellow. Your comment violates the textual rules. Actually your post attacks me as an individual, so in that sense it's really kinda worse, isn't it? And on the flip side, I was dismissive of an argument in a single line of a 3000 character comment. Oh no.

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

#529

Post by refurb »

kuschku wrote: post #231
gautamdivgi wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kids are noisy and have plenty of energy. You don’t want to be staying below me in an apartment building. The noise of my 2 kids jumping and running around would drive you nuts. And oh - they will have friends over as well. And if they’re doing band or music practice - oh boy :) Yeah - they could go out. But they’ll come back in and its messy and noisy everywhere. It’s just the way kids are. I guess folks need to be…

I'd have no problem with having you as my neighbor. Living in a German brick apartment building, when my neighbor has his subwoofer on maximum, I can still barely hear it over the sound of my own breath. I can watch movies at cinema reference volume at home at 3am and my neighbors don't notice it either. Your problem isn't with apartment buildings, it's with shoddy american construction standards.

Nahhh... even the best apartment buildings suck compared to a detached home.

I've lived in all concrete apartment buildings and you can still here some noise as it travels through solid concrete pretty well.

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

#530

Post by [deleted] »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #523
Steltek wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those values are totally compatible with dense urban living! I have kids and enjoy all of those things in a walkable/bikeable community (Boston, MA). Most Americans have never seen it work so they think it's impossible. The reality is that it's illegal to build these places and the environment found here was built before NIMBYs strangled it.

I think you are discounting the desires of others. I personally love having my little slice of land. Cooking for myself in my own kitchen. I don't mind a drive every couple of weeks to get some more food. I know all my neighbors and bbq with them occassionally. I don't wish to break up dense city culture, why do you want to break up my preferred suburban culture? Can't we live in peace rather than dumping on each oth…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN