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

#81

Post by incomingpain » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:28 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've seen so much anti-car, pro-walkability, pro-transit, pro-bikeability sentiment online recently.

The usual political activist group has switched to this. The laptop class wants to ban cars. We could discuss if that's a good idea or not.

Societal cost of transportation is insane. Imagine where you have a society number of amortized cars sitting in drive ways doing nothing. What a huge waste of society's wealth.

What would be the cost difference if we simply had driverless vehicles that could pick you up, do whatever you need to do, and then move onto the next person. Sure there would be peak times and all this but for the most part you far better utilize transportation.

The cost is immense. Car ownership is stupid. If only we had a legitimate driverless option. Free market would shift because of this alone.

>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.

No certainly not. The only proof is the political activists have shifted their intentions. perhaps we find out later?

>I hate cars. I don't want to use them on a daily basis. I'm cheap, and I don't want to own one, or maintain one. I try to do everything I can by biking or walking, or transit if those aren't feasible. It is nearly impossible in 95% of the USA.

Ive been considering this.

https://organictransit.com/product/elf-2fr/

Solar powered pedal assisted ebike that's enclosed so even in the winter you could zip around and get where you need to go. It's an ebike so hills arent a problem. In the summer you could take windows and doors off.

If there's situations where there's too much snow? Ok I'll just not go, staying home. It's enclosed for rain. I dont need AC or heat.

But $10,000 for something that'll get stolen?

Looking at building my own from scratch as a winter project this year. I am estimating I could build something equivalent for probably $2000.

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

#82

Post by dont__panic » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:28 PM UTC

xhkkffbf wrote: post #61

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…

While I generally like the idea of city centers, I think that this kind of anti-car stuff comes off like wild-eyed propaganda. For instance, the title suggests that the places were built for cars alone, kind of like the garage where Jay Leno keeps his collection. No. The suburbs were built for people driving cars. Not just cars. People getting rides in cars, avoiding weather, sitting comfortably, transporting the han…

I don't think car haters deny that cars can be useful, particularly in the environment we've constructed here in the USA. Hell, I own (half of) a car, because I want to visit family and friends who live a couple of hours away, and there's no train or even bus that could bring me to them.

> The suburbs were built for people driving cars. Not just cars. People getting rides in cars, avoiding weather, sitting comfortably, transporting the handicapped and the infirm and the older folks.

No, they were built for cars. Giant 4-lane 45 MPH stroads with no sidewalks that "connect" neighborhoods for cars, but isolate anyone without a car... those are built for cars. Driveways are built for people to get to cars, and some cul-de-sacs are built for children to play (but not teenagers to do anything interesting outside the yard -- they might get in trouble).

A lot of us just want SOMEPLACE in the USA where we can live without a car. NYC is the only place I can think of that accomplishes that, but with median rent hitting 3-4k/mo, that's out of reach for all but the highest earners. There are some cities and towns where you can occasionally do things outside of a car if you're willing to pay a premium and deal with poor infrastructure, but it all feels very fringe -- as if you're doing something you shouldn't.

Remember that wanting places without cars does not mean we want to ban cars, or stop people from using them in rural areas, or blow up the suburbs, or anything that wild. We just want to de-emphasize cars in dense environments so we can walk around!

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

#83

Post by itsoktocry » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:28 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…

>Selfishly, I really want the USA to bring city centers back to livable levels by banning most cars and redesigning them for humans.

I bet if this happened you'd be living in a downtown that's physically walkable, but there's no business left to walk to.

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

#84

Post by mancerayder » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:28 PM UTC

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 rules, and in American cities it seems chaos and lawlessness are embraced as tolerance and compassion.

I've lived in a city for a while. I'm through. People are rude, loud and even dangerous: putting aside criminality which is being essentially decriminalized (we've removed bail for all but attempted murder in my city, and prosecutors are progressive and are systematically reducing charges on violent crimes so they are misdemeanors, because they're trying to reduce incarceration), cars and e bikes have become dangerous to pedestrians. You're literally never relaxed walking outside on a sidewalk now.

Is that the vision?

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

#85

Post by gautamdivgi » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:29 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #25

twblalock wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a lot of Americans who are well-travelled and have seen world-class transit in Europe and Asia, and most of them still choose to live in suburbs. The average American wants to live in a detached house that they own. This does not lead to dense cities. It leads to sprawl, which is what we got because it’s what we want.

I spent time in Singapore where living in dense high rises and traveling on a very well run public transit system is commonplace. Same thing. I found that people who could afford cars bought them for the convenience (despite the 100% import duty and $100,000 COE charge for 10 year permit). And same with detached housing. It’s was pretty much the ideal for families. Constant complaints of noise in apartment buildings,…

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 careful what they wish for. I’m all for accessible and densely populated housing. But I’m used to the noise.

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

#86

Post by denni9th » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:30 PM UTC

Xeoncross wrote: post #60

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…

Keep in mind that the US is only about 10% smaller than all of Europe combined. While I would love more walking/biking friendly cities, what about all the rural areas? It would take millions and millions of buses or train connections to get to all the places I drive and would still be more of a hassle than just driving there myself plus I couldn't pick the scenic routes. People in major cities have different needs th…

No one has said we should eliminate cars entirely. Cars make sense in rural areas, we should use them there. Cars don't make sense in cities, so we need alternatives.

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

#87

Post by wszfahwbwbaha » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:30 PM UTC

xhkkffbf wrote: post #61

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…

While I generally like the idea of city centers, I think that this kind of anti-car stuff comes off like wild-eyed propaganda. For instance, the title suggests that the places were built for cars alone, kind of like the garage where Jay Leno keeps his collection. No. The suburbs were built for people driving cars. Not just cars. People getting rides in cars, avoiding weather, sitting comfortably, transporting the han…

I think it's just the case where there is a handful of extremely vocal anti-car people. Mostly everyone else likes them and doesn't feel the need to defend them because it's the status-quo.

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

#88

Post by mantas » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:30 PM UTC

warning26 wrote: post #64

datadata wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you tie housing costs to cars?

Easy, supply and demand. Before cars, dense housing was the norm, but cars popularized spreading everything out as much as possible so you have room for wide roads and lots of parking. Less density -> less housing overall -> decreased supply -> increased prices

You may want to look into housing prices in european or asian cities :)

Less drivability -> harder to move out to suburbia -> more demand for in-city housing -> increased prices

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

#89

Post by scottLobster » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:30 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…

So as a two car millennial American family that makes regular trips into our city center, we never use our cars going into the city. It's just stressful, streets are narrow, parking's expensive and car-jacking and vandalism are more likely. Just makes more sense to take the bus, cheaper too when you count the cost of parking. I also like having places to walk to from my house.

That said, I like having my own house with my own land. That house and land is freedom to live how I want (within reason) without worrying if the neighbors will complain about my watching The Mandalorian at 1am. A car is freedom to go wherever I want whenever I want, and I use said freedoms on a regular basis. It's also carrying capacity, instead of making multiple inefficient trips to a local market multiple times a week I can get all my family's groceries in one trip once a week. Ditto for outdoor supplies, small furniture, Christmas Trees, etc. Never mind that WFH doesn't work for a lot of jobs, and not just low-paying ones. Many good jobs require a car to get to them.

So I think there's a good middle ground here. Make city centers less car friendly and denser to discourage car use, improve walking infrastructure in the suburbs (more sidewalks/bike trails that actually go places).

I'm all for a wide range of options, but cars are not a universal evil. The frog is not being boiled, this is what a lot of us see as a better life. Granted there are plenty of people doing it wrong, but that's always been true.

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

#90

Post by falcolas » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:30 PM UTC

xsmasher wrote: post #65

falcolas wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right - I do not want to live in dense cities. I did it for years, and hated it. I was happy when I was able to move out into a detached home where I can use speakers and not have to worry about a neighbor getting angry. It's only one neighbor out of the 6 I would share separating walls with, but one is all it takes.

If you could live in a detached home but the next block over had a restaurant or two and a small grocery, wouldn't that be pleasant? Zoning that allows ONLY single-family detached housing, and no retail or business, forces car-dependency. "Detached home or high-rise apartment in a city" is a false dichotomy.

> wouldn't that be pleasant

Not really. Small grocery stores lack variety (by necessity, when their potential market is limited to families living in a 1-2 mile radius). Two restaurants lack variety. It makes for stupidly boring food choices over time.

Frankly, I'd end up not using them, ordering even more over the internet, and interacting even less with folks nearby.