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

551–560 of 576 posts

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

#551

Post by mrtksn »

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…

Walking and driving are not mutually exclusive. You can drive and go to restaurants far away even though if you have 5 restaurants in walking distance.

Source: Last 20 years I lived in cities with population from 5M to 15M and I always had at least 10 restaurants at walking distance and I used public transport and cars to go to places way beyond the walking distance.

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

#552

Post by Consultant32452 »

alamortsubite wrote: post #537
Consultant32452 wrote: post #318

I've never felt less human connection than when I've been in dense cities.

Try being a pedestrian on a stroad in suburbia and see how that compares.

When I walk around in suburbia it's full of my neighbors also walking around. We make small talk, catch up about the kids, etc. It's quite enjoyable.

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

#553

Post by fwsgonzo »

hnuser847 wrote: post #511
fwsgonzo wrote: post #272

I live in a small remote town on an island, and I could not be happier. Silent, big houses, everything I need in shops and restaurants, and incredible scenery every day. I used to live in the big city when I was studying, and it was horrible. I used to have a window open just to get some air into the horrible apartment I lived in, and the windowsill would have a layer of asphalt dust. The big city has a few things th…

Do you mind revealing what island you live on, or at least the general region? I've always fantasized about living in a small town on an island.

Yes, sure. It's not a secret place or anything :)

https://visithelgeland.com/no/places/sandnessjoen/

It's kinda cold and dark in the winter. Otherwise it's pretty nice!

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

#554

Post by azemetre »

tekknik wrote: post #539
azemetre wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Where did you grow up? In an apartment or with a lawn?

I grew up in a rural town (originally zoned for agriculture) where slowly over the next three decades became a town where rich doctors, lawyers, and accountants live now. I always get a kick seeing a certain individual sell a plot of farm land to build condos that now sell for $600k each next to a pond where I would fish as a kid. My ancestral home costs $80,000 and the land alone today is worth nearly a million dollars. Florida is definitely a case study where while zoning is relaxed, planning has little to zero forethought.

Growing up during this transition sucked. My family was poor so I didn't get a car until I was 21; there were also no sidewalks to walk anywhere, nearest bus stop was 3 miles from my home. It blew, I had to rely on my parents to do anything. There was no independence for me. If I wanted to go to a friends house that was 2 miles away, I'd have to walk across 3 difference highways and busy roads; highly dangerous for a 12 year old.

I remember visiting a cousin that lived Cambridge, MA and I was so jealous that she was able to do what she wanted without a car. She was 14 and had access to nearly the entire Cambridge/Boston/Quincy area by virtue of just walking. Bonus? My Aunt and Uncle had a SFH in Cambridge.

It is possible to develop areas like this. It's not a switch you turn on or off, but we purposely limit these areas to the affluent:

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/11/3/our-self-impos...

Now nearly 15 years later, I can live a similar lifestyle my cousin did but only because I have a well paying tech job.

edit: after reading some other replies you made, I'm not trying to make an either or situation but simply give people a choice on where to live. Walkable communities are extremely popular in the US, it's where land value is extremely high and homes are desirable. It's not just limited to NYC or Chicago or Boston, there are walkable towns in Minnesota (Milwaukee Avenue, Minneapolis) and even Florida (Seaside); if there were more walkable cities in the US I would bet my life's labor that they would become populated easily.

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

#555

Post by AlwaysRock »

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 think being in a city makes one more social. That being said, I have a close friend group who I don't live near. I meet plenty of people but having moved around a lot I don't have any close friends in my current city right now. I'm friendly with my neighbors but not friends with them. That's been true of just about everywhere I've lived, rural or urban.

I don't think I'd be more likely to make friends with my neighbors if I moved to the burbs. This seems to be driven more by personality and need than location, right?

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

#556

Post by AlwaysRock »

Dwolb wrote: post #429
nightski wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Different strokes. My wife and I stayed in a suburb for 3 months while we were caretaking and working remotely. I couldn’t step out my door and go out on a run, the nearest coffee shop was a 15 minute drive away, and no restaurants were open past 9 and often closed on weird days. It felt like the only way to be comfortable in the suburb was to own more things and build your own castle. We returned back to Chicago and…

Yup. We've considered moving to the small IL town my wife is from. It's even fairly lively for a small town (they have like 7 restaurants instead of 3). But we visit for a month or so once or twice a year and by the end of the month we are dying to get out.

Even thought in Chicago MOST of the time we go to the same handful of restaurants, its the option to have a near countless amount that we COULD go to that keeps us from feeling like were going to the same few places.

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

#557

Post by AlwaysRock »

FFRefresh wrote: post #468
nightski wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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…

I guess it just depends on how much you like/dislike driving. I hate driving. I hate parking. I hate traffic.

I'd happily take a less nice walk than being forced to drive.

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

#558

Post by AlwaysRock »

april_22 wrote: post #388
nightski wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 would say bikeability is the best. If you live in any quiter regions of most mid- to large sized cities in western europe and scandinavia you will have access to a huge variety of possibilites, restaurants, bars etc. and can access everything relaviely quick, while living in a quiet area. Biking is also fun imo.

It's great until its cold or rainy. I don't really want to bike in the rain to a restaurant for dinner. Or even if it rained recently due to the water kicking up from the tires. I can walk with an umbrella just fine.

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

#559

Post by AlwaysRock »

goodpoint wrote: post #510
nightski wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 childre…

A decent bodega within ~5 of walking distance if such a game changer.

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

#560

Post by AlwaysRock »

r00fus wrote: post #375
dont__panic wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even smaller towns are viable, too. My New England town has around 5,000 people in it. Aside from the early closing times for restaurants and breweries, (8 or 9!?!?!?!), I have access to exactly the same amenities I had in cities before. And lots more outdoor-oriented things as well. Plus... no traffic.

Restaurants close at 8/9 in high-price metro areas like the SF Bay also (suburbs).

Some. Not all. The difference is when ALL restaurants are closed vs some/many/most.
Post reply on HN