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

#571

Post by Shocka1 » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 6:26 PM UTC

nightski wrote: post #441

psyc wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the same 5 resturaunts In my case you'd be off by at least an order of magnitude. You like variety, eh? I mean.. I can get any kind of cuisine at all that can be found in a big city... Not sure what suburbia has to offer on top of that. I mean, you do you. Just saying your argument could maybe use an accuracy adjustment.

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

I agree with everything you've said wholeheartedly. Personally I could never live in the city again - been there done that. It seems to be very popular here on HN though.

Probably going off on a tangent here, but I grew up surrounded by hundreds of acres of farmland and woods to get lost in the minute I walked out the door, which I still escape to as much as I can, whether it's family owned rural property or state parks/mountains. Working in tech early in my career made that escape harder to get to, but I wouldn't trade rural life for any amount of restaurants, social gatherings, or whatever else within walking distance.

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

#572

Post by j2bax » Fri, Aug 26, 2022, 7:30 PM UTC

__derek__ wrote: post #285

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…

> 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 rules, and in American cities it seems chaos and lawlessness are embraced as tolerance and compassion. Have you lived in a rural area? If not, you should find a way to try it out before taking the leap. City f…

I think more universal rural challenges for people that are from more populated areas are... difficulty breaking into the community as an outsider. Lack of medical services. Lack of restaurants. Lack of services in general. I lived in some fairly populated suburbs for a decade or so before moving back to where I grew up in a fairly rural small town and the adjustment has been fairly difficult. Haven't really had any issues with any ATV's or shotguns in the middle of the night... I mean I'm sure it has happened but its not such a recurring issue that I'm losing sleep over it. We aren't too far from a fairly popular snowmobile route but I rather like the occasional whine while I'm cozy in bed!

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

#573

Post by skinnymuch » Sat, Aug 27, 2022, 2:34 AM UTC

boring_twenties wrote: post #4

skinnymuch wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t help people who work at small companies. They still get screwed by car focused society without proper work socializing.

Ha, so my friend recently accepted a "remote" job. Shortly after he started, they nixed that and started requiring everyone to come to the office most of the time. The best part is that no one from his team is in the office in his city. So now he has to commute 1.5h a day just to work remotely from the "office."

Yeah…why is he working? Is he a programmer or in a less demand filled job where he can’t easily get another?

Also. Are there other people from the company in the office who work in similar departments?

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

#574

Post by igouy » Mon, Aug 29, 2022, 4:35 PM UTC

dividefuel wrote: post #520

igouy wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nope, nor did anyone introduce themselves to us when they moved in. I also very rarely saw other sets of neighbors interact with each other.

Maybe if you make a small change in how you behave …

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

#575

Post by asdff » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 5:29 PM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #498

asdff wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes that old building is a tire shop and the new building is a 5 story apartment with ground floor commercial space, though.

I’m never all redevlopment is bad, but if part of the old parcels are the nice walkable shops and nearby residences, and we don’t really allow new ones, then it’s going to be a predictable net loss. A lot of these locations are grandfathered in and would not be allowed under their current zoning regulations. —- There’s a separate issue with new modern mixed use in the US where retail tends to have low occupancy. Part…

Take a street like melrose ave. It's filled with pretty well leased, single story commercial real estate abutting low rise apartments and homes. Walkable? Sure, if you manage to snag one of the limited available leases in a 15 mins walk. Replace those commercial parcels on melrose with 5 over 1s, and there is no net loss here. The same commercial square footage is available, sometimes more if the the building extends further into the lot versus if the old building had a small surface parking lot in the rear, sometimes a lot more if more than 1 story is set to be commercial space. Not to mention the apartment stock swells up, supporting a larger customer base for these businesses when these apartments are inevitably leased out before long.

NIMBYs in this city bemoaned old Amoeba records loosing its "historic" low rise commercial building. But Amoeba just moved into one of these mixed used developments a few blocks away closer to the metro station, got more square footage out of the deal, and sold the old property for a lot of money. The city changes and it isn't a bad thing, in fact its typically a good thing that it changes as this keeps rents closer to the actual wages seen.

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

#576

Post by chung8123 » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 11:02 PM UTC

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…

I guess I am the opposite. It wasn't hard for me to find walkable places in the cities I have lived it because I planned my living around not having to drive much. There are still things I have to drive to like seeing my parents and family but everyday things like groceries, bars, food, haircut, etc were easy for me to do walking it all the cities I have lived. Also I lived in the suburbs of those cities so it isn't an urban core thing. For me as long as I prioritized walking my locations have been walking friendly.