4 ms·

The real problem, as the author tangentially points out, is our over-reliance on cars to move us around. That’s due to the intentional choices that we have all

The real problem, as the author tangentially points out, is our over-reliance on cars to move us around. That’s due to the intentional choices that we have all made. If you look at the structure of suburban areas of cities in the US, you’ll immediately see that they are entirely designed the assumption of the existence of a personal car for YOU. You simply cannot get around without one. A choice that I’m grappling with personally (as someone who lives in the suburbs in the US and owns two Teslas) is that I should really move somewhere more sustainable, i.e., more density so that I can get rid of my cars. That’s more difficult given family needs etc. If I didn’t have to factor others’ needs, I would have done this already. This is the point that I think the author is trying to make. Changes at the margin aren’t addressing the real problem - they’re treating the symptom, not the disease.

magduf 7y ago
>A choice that I’m grappling with personally (as someone who lives in the suburbs in the US and owns two Teslas) is that I should really move somewhere more sustainable, i.e., more density so that I can get rid of my cars. That’s more difficult given family needs etc. If I didn’t have to factor others’ needs, I would have done this already. This is exactly what I'm planning to do. However, for most Americans, it isn't a realistic choice, because it means you have to emigrate from America. There's almost no place in this country where you can live without a car.
- localhost 7y ago
  I haven’t ruled out emigrating from America either. I follow modacitylife[1] on Twitter, and love the cycling centric culture in that small city just outside of The Hague. I like the design of that city more than, say Manhattan, which is another candidate. [1] https://twitter.com/modacitylife https://twitter.com/modacitylife
- cr0sh 7y ago
  > There's almost no place in this country where you can live without a car. There's almost no place in this country -that is affordable- where you can live without a car. That's the real problem. Sure - there's NY or SF, which for the most part have the infrastructure to support most people's non-car needs. But only the very few can afford to live in either place. I know I couldn't afford it, unless I somehow could land a FAANG job (not likely at my age and education level). I can't even afford to live in the downtown area of the city I currently live "in" (Phoenix) - prices there have skyrocketed, mainly due to certain infrastructure transportation improvements and other things making downtown "the cool place" to live at (and conversely pushing out the artists and such who can't afford to live there any longer). Expensive loft apartments, existing urban housing in the historic parts (pricing gone thru the roof on those). It's crazy. So - out in the "suburbs" I stay (which isn't really the real suburbs any longer, since I'm in an older area that used to be "the edge" but no longer).
yellowapple 7y ago
> The real problem, as the author tangentially points out, is our over-reliance on cars to move us around. And the author fails to explain why (in the context of climate change) that's actually a problem. Suburban areas have a disproportionate carbon footprint specifically because of ICE-powered cars being required to go anywhere; if those ICE cars become electric cars, and that electricity comes from solar/wind/nuclear/hydro/geothermal/etc., then... where, exactly, is the carbon footprint? Hell, at that point the suburban areas could actually be net carbon sinks, given there's more room for big carbon-devouring trees in between single-family/duplex/quadruplex homes than there typically is between skyscrapers packed as tightly as possible (as is the norm in even small cities, let alone large ones).
- JKCalhoun 7y ago
  > And the author fails to explain why (in the context of climate change) that's actually a problem ... if those ICE cars become electric cars, and that electricity comes from solar/wind/nuclear/hydro/geothermal/etc., then... where, exactly, is the carbon footprint? The author very specifically points that out: > ...our cars primarily exist to connect things, things that require immense extraction and fossil fuel energy to build, run and maintain: roads buildings factories shopping centres suburbs cities airports and so on. It is not just the car itself that is unsustainable; it is our entire way of life and the system that underpins it.
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    Okay, and those things don't go away - nor do we stop building them - if we use buses or trains or planes or boats or teleportation pads instead. What about cars, specifically, contributes to this where other modes of transportation do not? I can almost understand this for roads (but buses still need those, too!). Literally everything else is entirely orthogonal to cars or the lack thereof; abolishing cars entirely v. switching to electric-only would have zero impact there.
- localhost 7y ago
  Another aspect of suburban living that I don't like at all is how it isolates people from each other. I've made the mistake of living in a subdivision with lot sizes > 0.5 acres. Because of the low density, my kids can't have spontaneous interactions with friends that I enjoyed while younger, i.e., walk / cycle to their houses to hang out. Everything becomes scheduled and everything requires a car to shuttle the kids around to their activities. I've become convinced that density really is the answer to building a more humane way of living.
OrangeMango 7y ago
> A choice that I’m grappling with personally (as someone who lives in the suburbs in the US and owns two Teslas) is that I should really move somewhere more sustainable, i.e., more density so that I can get rid of my cars. There is an alternative. Lobby your city to relax zoning. Let someone replace one of the homes in your subdivision with a coffee shop/convenience store/pizza parlor. Things like that. Your current built environment isn't perfect for perfectly sustainable living, but allowing it to grow organically in that direction is far more sustainable than abandoning it and building new cities.
- localhost 7y ago
  I agree. Although I wasn't advocating building a new city; rather just moving to a city that already has the infrastructure in place. I struggle with this as moving is most definitely giving up on my current "community" and lobbying would most definitely push me out of my comfort zone. But perhaps that's a good thing :)

magduf 7y ago

>A choice that I’m grappling with personally (as someone who lives in the suburbs in the US and owns two Teslas) is that I should really move somewhere more sustainable, i.e., more density so that I can get rid of my cars. That’s more difficult given family needs etc. If I didn’t have to factor others’ needs, I would have done this already. This is exactly what I'm planning to do. However, for most Americans, it isn't a realistic choice, because it means you have to emigrate from America. There's almost no place in this country where you can live without a car.

localhost 7y ago
I haven’t ruled out emigrating from America either. I follow modacitylife[1] on Twitter, and love the cycling centric culture in that small city just outside of The Hague. I like the design of that city more than, say Manhattan, which is another candidate. [1] https://twitter.com/modacitylife https://twitter.com/modacitylife
cr0sh 7y ago
> There's almost no place in this country where you can live without a car. There's almost no place in this country -that is affordable- where you can live without a car. That's the real problem. Sure - there's NY or SF, which for the most part have the infrastructure to support most people's non-car needs. But only the very few can afford to live in either place. I know I couldn't afford it, unless I somehow could land a FAANG job (not likely at my age and education level). I can't even afford to live in the downtown area of the city I currently live "in" (Phoenix) - prices there have skyrocketed, mainly due to certain infrastructure transportation improvements and other things making downtown "the cool place" to live at (and conversely pushing out the artists and such who can't afford to live there any longer). Expensive loft apartments, existing urban housing in the historic parts (pricing gone thru the roof on those). It's crazy. So - out in the "suburbs" I stay (which isn't really the real suburbs any longer, since I'm in an older area that used to be "the edge" but no longer).

yellowapple 7y ago

> The real problem, as the author tangentially points out, is our over-reliance on cars to move us around. And the author fails to explain why (in the context of climate change) that's actually a problem. Suburban areas have a disproportionate carbon footprint specifically because of ICE-powered cars being required to go anywhere; if those ICE cars become electric cars, and that electricity comes from solar/wind/nuclear/hydro/geothermal/etc., then... where, exactly, is the carbon footprint? Hell, at that point the suburban areas could actually be net carbon sinks, given there's more room for big carbon-devouring trees in between single-family/duplex/quadruplex homes than there typically is between skyscrapers packed as tightly as possible (as is the norm in even small cities, let alone large ones).

JKCalhoun 7y ago
> And the author fails to explain why (in the context of climate change) that's actually a problem ... if those ICE cars become electric cars, and that electricity comes from solar/wind/nuclear/hydro/geothermal/etc., then... where, exactly, is the carbon footprint? The author very specifically points that out: > ...our cars primarily exist to connect things, things that require immense extraction and fossil fuel energy to build, run and maintain: roads buildings factories shopping centres suburbs cities airports and so on. It is not just the car itself that is unsustainable; it is our entire way of life and the system that underpins it.
- yellowapple 7y ago
  Okay, and those things don't go away - nor do we stop building them - if we use buses or trains or planes or boats or teleportation pads instead. What about cars, specifically, contributes to this where other modes of transportation do not? I can almost understand this for roads (but buses still need those, too!). Literally everything else is entirely orthogonal to cars or the lack thereof; abolishing cars entirely v. switching to electric-only would have zero impact there.
localhost 7y ago
Another aspect of suburban living that I don't like at all is how it isolates people from each other. I've made the mistake of living in a subdivision with lot sizes > 0.5 acres. Because of the low density, my kids can't have spontaneous interactions with friends that I enjoyed while younger, i.e., walk / cycle to their houses to hang out. Everything becomes scheduled and everything requires a car to shuttle the kids around to their activities. I've become convinced that density really is the answer to building a more humane way of living.

OrangeMango 7y ago

> A choice that I’m grappling with personally (as someone who lives in the suburbs in the US and owns two Teslas) is that I should really move somewhere more sustainable, i.e., more density so that I can get rid of my cars. There is an alternative. Lobby your city to relax zoning. Let someone replace one of the homes in your subdivision with a coffee shop/convenience store/pizza parlor. Things like that. Your current built environment isn't perfect for perfectly sustainable living, but allowing it to grow organically in that direction is far more sustainable than abandoning it and building new cities.

localhost 7y ago
I agree. Although I wasn't advocating building a new city; rather just moving to a city that already has the infrastructure in place. I struggle with this as moving is most definitely giving up on my current "community" and lobbying would most definitely push me out of my comfort zone. But perhaps that's a good thing :)