3 ms·

It's not a virtue signal so much as a status signal. Having enough money to afford to live in densely populated urban areas where you don't need a car to live

• rootusrootus 9y ago
  Except that the people who are making the argument for living in the city without a car constantly cite costs as justification. And besides, isn't it the other way around? Unless you're living in one of a few extremely narrow areas of very specific cities, the really wealthy people live outside the urban core.
• dashundchen 9y ago
  That's definitely not true. I live in a city where a third of households are carless, believe me, with the neglected state of transit and pedestrian infrastructure, it's not a choice for most. I wouldn't hesitate to say that's the case in almost every American city outside NYC. But we should be talking about designing our society around more bikes, transit and walking. Transportation should be accessible to everyone - those too young for a license, too handicapped to walk or drive, those unable to afford a car. I think our health, environment, liviability and community would all be done a great service by demphasizing the single passenger car and it's accessories (sprawl, acres of parking, endless noise, pollution and isolated commutes)