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

561–570 of 576 posts

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

#561

Post by AlwaysRock »

dont__panic wrote: post #142
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…

Any success filtering for walkability in the US when buying a home? As far as I can tell, "walkability" scores are borderline useless -- the small town I currently live in has extremely low "walkability," despite being able to walk or bike to everything I need, whereas the large city I just left has extremely high "walkability" -- despite the fact that walking around town was not pleasant due to high volumes of car t…

Filtering by neighborhood and knowing the neighborhoods. Not that helpful if you are moving from somewhere else but pretty easy if you live in the area already.

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

#562

Post by AlwaysRock »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #419
bobthepanda wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes, people are looking for small and boring, like some parents who are raising kids and are no longer partying every weekend. (There are also pros and cons to raising children in cities; growing up in NYC I got a free transit pass in middle school and was able to take myself to places like the Met and the Guggenheim pretty effortlessly, and you certainly can't get amenities like those everywhere.) There's noth…

Nothing wrong with small and boring, but even boring suburbs should have a grocery store within walking distance of most houses, which they mostly don't in the US.

Really? What do you call walking distance? Most suburbs I've spent time in will have a grocery store in driving distance (~5 miles away) but that isnt really walking distance if you are trying to carry any significant amount of groceries or trying to make the trip in less than 2 hours.

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

#563

Post by AlwaysRock »

alistairSH wrote: post #320
foxyv wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s just that these small groceries cannot outcompete supermarkets once people are in the habit of going everywhere by car. This is true to a limited extent. If small grocers and bakeries were allowed to setup in mixed use areas they would do a whole lot better. However sticking them an average of 3 miles from their customers in a horrible strip mall kills them. I would happily pay a premium for having a grocer ju…

If small grocers and bakeries were allowed to setup in mixed use areas That's the crux of the problem in the US. Vast swaths of land are dedicated to single-family homes (and ONLY single-family homes). You literally couldn't build a small grocery next to these homes if you wanted. And the hurdles to getting a zoning change as so high that developers just build strip malls on the outskirts of town/subdivision. We're b…

Yeah I hate this. I get that zoning exists for a reason but some regulation would lead to better mixed use areas so its not houses for 15 blocks then businesses for 5 blocks and repeat.

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

#564

Post by AlwaysRock »

mjevans wrote: post #227
pkulak wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP said _home_, not single family house.

Not OP, but... Apartments suck, a lot, in the US. * Noise; aren't built to sufficient privacy levels. * Smell; laundry, cooking, or whatever... * not designed to scrub, filter, and direct exhaust. * Patios == smoke or grill; even though those are banned by policy. * Somehow cost more than renting elsewhere * Rent seeking causes negative patterns * Car parking hell As much as the anti-car crowd wants to be anti-car, t…

I was thinking house/condo but I've lived in apartments for most of my adult life and would have purchased several of them if I had the cash at the time.

They were not noise, in fact in one I only ever heard my neighbors one time in three years of living there, they were typically pretty spacious, rent didnt fluctuate that greatly, I didnt need/have a car most of the time but there was lots of street parking, and I don't have a great sense of smell but oders were never an issue.

Nice apartments exist. You just pay about the same as you would for them as you would on a mortgage.

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

#565

Post by yeeyeeyee »

dividefuel wrote: post #228

I certainly agree that the US planned too much around cars and not enough around walking/transit/cycling. I am however often skeptical of the comparisons to university life. While walkability absolutely does help foster connection, I don't think you can attribute all of the differences just to that. There are other major differences between life in university and life outside that also make a big difference in foster…

The biggest apple/orange problem with OPs comparison is that in a university, there is a competitive admission process. Universities are planned, elite communities. You can't do that in a city. "Oh sorry NYC is now for people with 1400+ SAT only, sorry buddy, you're gonna have to go to Detroit."

I guess you can price people out, but that does not really have the same effect as the psychometric screening that universities do.

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

#566

Post by pornel »

tekknik wrote: post #540
pornel wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you think that because the only dense urban living options available to you are the car hellscapes? I've been raised in Warsaw (a dense capital of Poland). I've had good schools within walking distance. I've had access to quiet green spaces within walking and biking distance (they weren't paved over for parking lots). I've had lots of places to hang out with my friends, who lived nearby, or whom I could reach m…

and so because you were raised this way the rest of us should be? why do we constantly push our ideals onto others?

I'm just giving a counter example that dense cities can be appealing for raising a family, and even an unexceptional city like Warsaw can manage it with the right priorities. The fact that something exists doesn't mean it's the only and forced option.

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

#567

Post by ocschwar »

atyppo wrote: post #547
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…

Check out Portugal's golden visa program especially if you can WFH. Either way, the real estate program provides instant residency and only mandates 7 days of residency per year before citizenship (14 in the last year). After five years, you'll have a passport issued by a Schengen country that will allow you to work anywhere in the Schengen area.

I've been checking Ponta Delgada out on Zillow for a while now.

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

#568

Post by thehappypm »

pkulak wrote: post #509
thehappypm wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wait, who wouldnt pay property tax?

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

#569

Post by nightski »

aprdm wrote: post #424
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…

> 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. 5? Depends where you live of course, I have 100+ within 20 min walk, easily! > 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. Depends. If you go…

I mean it seems obvious to me that if you have 100+ restaurants within a 20 min walk, all with near minimum wage workers that is a lot of less wealthy people having to commute in to give you that experience. That's great for you I guess.

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

#570

Post by nightski »

asdff wrote: post #451
nightski wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do more than just restaurants you know. We like to visit state parks, bike trails and get out into nature.

That's fine. It's fine to own a car and use it for those things. What is absurd is using a 4000lb hunk of steel to go 2 miles down the road to get a gallon of milk, which is how the bulk of car centric america operates. The vast majority of the energy spent is just to move the vehicle.

The op was suggesting removing this infrastructure altogether so we could walk everywhere. I'm saying that is unrealistic because I like to go places I can't just walk to.

Whether I walk to the grocery store or not isn't super relevant.

Post reply on HN