3 ms·

Wow I disagree with literally everything said here and this kind of thinking is exactly why public transit in the US is awful. Honestly, almost every single thi

Wow I disagree with literally everything said here and this kind of thinking is exactly why public transit in the US is awful. Honestly, almost every single thing you said here is either flat out wrong or disingenuous. This line in the article is the crux of the issue. > The question is not whether the predictions of how they will behave are accurate, but what kind of behavior we want to have more of. How we build determines what kind of environment we have not the other way around. People WILL sell their cars if they have good public transport. They will live in dense areas if they can. This has been the case in the US and all around the world. P.S. I really cringe at you saying that cars are cheap while talking about your ski trips. You obviously have never been around poor areas of the United States. Go hop a ride on a bus on the south side of Chicago some time. Go tell the people who commute an hour a day by bus that they should just buy a car because its so cheap.

ARandomerDude 6y ago
> They will live in dense areas if they can. The immense popularity of the quiet suburb seems to disprove this statement.
- rjkennedy98 6y ago
  > immense popularity of the quiet suburb I get what you are saying, but there is so much more going on that makes them "popular", particular in the United States. Firstly, is the cost of living in the suburbs is massively subsidized. In the coming decades this will become readily apparent as most of suburban America will not be able to afford its infrastructure. It is already starting to happen. Secondly, the suburbs in America are often the only legal way to build. We've outlawed density in most of the country. Many of the most urban parts of our major cities are less dense than they were a few decades ago because of zoning changes. Thirdly, we simply do not have good public transit. You may think that New York or Chicago have great public transit but they have substantially less per-capita ridership compared to many other equivalent cities. I'd suggest looking to other parts of the world as examples of immensely popular dense development. In Asia, Tokyo, Singapore, many cities in China and across Europe are great examples of this. The U.S. is an aberration - not the rule.
  - mjevans 6y ago
    There are also all of the downsides to living in cities (in the US anyway). (high) cost, noisy neighbors (and poor insulation), zero design for ventilation or privacy. This isn't directly addressed in the suburbs either, but the lower density in the suburbs decreases the effects. I've never lived in a shared dwelling that isn't an apartment though. Maybe the equally unaffordable condos and such in cities don't suck; however I'm inclined to believe that they share these faults and all of the distractions of others, particularly in cities with mostly US citizens.
colinmhayes 6y ago
I take the bus in Chicago, including the poorest parts. It's fine, I even prefer it to cars because I can't stand driving. The bus drivers consistently kick off trouble makers.

ARandomerDude 6y ago

> They will live in dense areas if they can. The immense popularity of the quiet suburb seems to disprove this statement.

rjkennedy98 6y ago
> immense popularity of the quiet suburb I get what you are saying, but there is so much more going on that makes them "popular", particular in the United States. Firstly, is the cost of living in the suburbs is massively subsidized. In the coming decades this will become readily apparent as most of suburban America will not be able to afford its infrastructure. It is already starting to happen. Secondly, the suburbs in America are often the only legal way to build. We've outlawed density in most of the country. Many of the most urban parts of our major cities are less dense than they were a few decades ago because of zoning changes. Thirdly, we simply do not have good public transit. You may think that New York or Chicago have great public transit but they have substantially less per-capita ridership compared to many other equivalent cities. I'd suggest looking to other parts of the world as examples of immensely popular dense development. In Asia, Tokyo, Singapore, many cities in China and across Europe are great examples of this. The U.S. is an aberration - not the rule.
- mjevans 6y ago
  There are also all of the downsides to living in cities (in the US anyway). (high) cost, noisy neighbors (and poor insulation), zero design for ventilation or privacy. This isn't directly addressed in the suburbs either, but the lower density in the suburbs decreases the effects. I've never lived in a shared dwelling that isn't an apartment though. Maybe the equally unaffordable condos and such in cities don't suck; however I'm inclined to believe that they share these faults and all of the distractions of others, particularly in cities with mostly US citizens.

colinmhayes 6y ago

I take the bus in Chicago, including the poorest parts. It's fine, I even prefer it to cars because I can't stand driving. The bus drivers consistently kick off trouble makers.