10 ms·

The shameful fact is that we have not only enthusiastically embraced - but required by force of law - that Americans cannot participate in the economy without a

The shameful fact is that we have not only enthusiastically embraced - but required by force of law - that Americans cannot participate in the economy without a private vehicle maintained in good repair. Perhaps in the 50's you could say "well there are plenty of pre-car places you can still live and work," but first we spent the 60's bulldozing those places to put in freeways and parking lots, then most of them hollowed out as the jobs moved to the suburbs, and now, strangely enough, they're revitalizing as lifestyle areas that are very expensive to live in. This, more than anything, has cut off the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. We're not going to fix any of the major societal issues in the US until we fix our suburban development pattern. We need to quit spreading dense splatters of suburban homes butter thin between massive gaps of poorly utilized land (aka "leapfrog development" made possible only because subdivisions get to externalize their infrastructure and public service costs), stop hyper regulating development so that it takes years of professional work to get a simple building permit, and design for safe pedestrian access as a first priority, so that car ownership becomes optional rather than mandatory. When it comes to housing and development we live in a state planned economy and it's failing us just as surely as all the others.

cpursley 6y ago
This is one of the main reasons I won't be moving back to the US if I if I can avoid it. Moving to a place built for humans is absolutely life changing. Whenever people where I now live ask what America is like I explain that you can't even purchase food without first owning a car (with a few exceptions).
- alostpuppy 6y ago
  I live in a nice semi dense area and our one walkable food outlet closed last year. We technically live in a food desert.
- axaxs 6y ago
  May I ask where you live now, and also in what ways it's built for humans? Just intrigued.
- polishdude20 6y ago
  Where do you live now?
- modularform123 6y ago
  I hope you and your family can get the Covid-19 vaccine soon, in whatever great place it is you are living in!
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  When our family lived in Boston we did not own a vehicle. Especially now with everyone using post pandemic delivery, it will get even easier to not have to own a vehicle.
  - hn_user82179 6y ago
    Yep, Boston frequently tops lists of cities with the best public transportation in the country. Really wish more cities had that infrastructure.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      The underlying requirement for a city to have good public transportation is to have more dense populations, which is almost always only found in older parts of cities. All the newer parts of any city in the previous decades were zoned to be less dense, so you're not going to see comprehensive public transportation any of the cities that have experienced recent growth. It's simply untenable under a certain amount of density, not to mention that most people prefer cars if they have the option to use them.
  - nja 6y ago
    Boston is certainly in a better position than a lot of the country. However, even in Boston, being able to be car-free is not always feasible for lower-income folks, especially as development relentlessly moves forward. As an example: the neighborhood I've lived in for a decade used to be a relatively low-income neighborhood. Rents were low in the old buildings, most folks walked to their jobs in the medical area, and there was a cheap Shaws grocery store for food, as well as several fast food places and family-run storefronts. Public transit (light rail, buses, and commuter rail) was accessible close by. Then a development company bought nearly all of the parcels along the main road and built a wall of mid-to-high-rises. Accordingly, all rent in the area went way up, forcing most of the lower-income folks out of even the older, shittier tenement buildings. A Target went in, and the Shaws rebranded as the more expensive Star Market (and will soon close so they can build a new Whole-Foods-type expensive megastore). All of the small storefronts closed, and now the area is nearly entirely high-end shopping outlets and expensive gastro-restaurants. They shut down the bus lines running through the neighborhood because all the rich people who moved in have cars (Porsches and Lambos now rev through the neighborhood at all hours) and bus ridership was down. Where did all of the folks -- and their families -- previously able to afford the area go? To areas of Boston where the rent is still cheap. Many of these places are nowhere near good public transit (e.g. if someone moved from this area of Boston to Dorchester, then took transit to their same job, it would require 3-4 transfers on packed buses and trains). So now these people are forced to get a car as well. The worst part of all of this is: who wins here? Not the people forced to leave their neighborhood, not the people who suddenly need to buy a car, not the people who can no longer afford to run a restaurant in the area... not even the rich people living in the expensive high-rises (or not living in -- many are vacant "investments" from overseas). The developers win. They pumped as much money as they could out of the neighborhood, and then moved on to their next target, leaving a less livable city in their wake.
- juancb 6y ago
  There may be an untapped market there waiting to be exploited.
  - burlesona 6y ago
    There is, but good luck trying to exploit it. You’ll spend a decade pulling permits and you won’t be able to get financing.
- devmunchies 6y ago
  > Moving to a place built for humans It's a factor of whether the city was built before the industrial revolution. Humans will always default to the easy path. I think it's the exact same paradigm for software bloat. By having higher powered computers, we build websites without needing to optimize, so now you need a high powered computer to run them. Building a city without cars is like developing a video game 30 years ago, much more deliberate use of limited resources.
  - retrac 6y ago
    Most of modern Japan's neighbourhoods were built after the war. Tokyo grew from some 4 million people left in the ruins to 12 million in 1980. Tokyo especially, but really the whole country, is even more walking and transit friendly than many of the commonly mentioned places in Western Europe. I think part of it was just a cultural preference, perhaps due to the communal nature of Japanese society. Another part of it was to avoid having to import oil, and to not waste wealth on cars. Gas, and vehicles, were taxed heavily, and still are.
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      IIRC a big part is parking policy. Notable differences - the US allows overnight street parking in many places. In Japan overnight street parking is banned. - the US mandates a minimum level of parking in pretty much all construction that in practice is very excessive; most developers build the minimum and nothing more, because they don't feel they need the parking (and often the lots are rarely full). Japan has some parking minimums but they are small. And there is no pressure to increase parking minimums to lessen demand for street parking, because overnight street parking is banned. - when buying a vehicle, Japan requires "proof-of-parking" in a space that is either owned or leased by the buyer. No such mandate exists in the US, so you can buy a car without having provided a place to park it. The above and other policies basically combine so that Japan has free-market parking with specific properties and buildings provided by the market as demand warrants. Whereas the US builds seas of parking without evidence of demand, so every property is surrounded with a sea of parking that pushes properties further from each other and causes driving to increase in a vicious cycle. https://www.reinventingparking.org/2019/12/learn-from-japan.html https://www.reinventingparking.org/2019/12/learn-from-japan....
colinmhayes 6y ago
There are a few places where you don't need a car. I didn't have a car in NYC and now I still don't in Chicago. Of course if you can't afford a car you probably can't afford to move.
- burlesona 6y ago
  Nor is New York or Chicago a good place to move if you’re very poor, as the housing and cost of living are difficult to manage.
- plorkyeran 6y ago
  Ironically places where you have happily live without a car tend to be more expensive to live in. It's not just the moving costs; if you can't afford a car you probably also can't afford the rent in a place where you don't need a car.
  - Swenrekcah 6y ago
    Probably that has a lot to do with the fact (or my opinion) that places where you can live car-free are also much nicer places to live, thus more sought after. Although I base that mostly on myself I’m sure there is some research into it.
    - cnasc 6y ago
      You would have to pay me to live in New York again
      - dan-robertson 6y ago
        I think this is a reason a lot of people live in New York...
      - stevewodil 6y ago
        Sometimes people are like, 'Why'd you move back to New York?' And I was like, 'I don't know, I just really love the ambience and there's such a charm to the city, you know?
db48x 6y ago
As usual, an over–generalization. Some places are like that, others are not. I myself live in a place that has both good access to the interstate for visits to neighboring towns, and is extremely walkable. There are two grocery stores within half a mile, more than a dozen restaurants, lots of other types of stores, office buildings, etc. It’s not perfect though; it could do with more apartment buildings in amongst the restaurants in my opinion. Still, I generally agree that the permitting process in many places is ridiculous, especially in big cities. But many people do want to live in a house with a yard; it’s not like the government is forcing people to do so.
- Sebguer 6y ago
  How much is your rent? Because, as OP mentioned: >they're revitalizing as lifestyle areas that are very expensive to live in.
  - db48x 6y ago
    More expensive than some, not as expensive as others.
- burlesona 6y ago
  The government is literally forcing them in the case of virtually all new residential development. In most places it is illegal to have lots under 5000 square feet or more than one family on a lot (no duplexes etc). In many places the lot size restrictions are even more extreme, requiring 10-20k sqft per lot. Almost every inch of the US and Canada has a litany of rules saying that buildings have to be 20’ or more set back from the street and have to leave 5-10’ on each side clear on the sides and rear. Usually they are limited to two stories and in some cases only one. A lot of places take this further with rules on how much of your house has to be brick, or what color the roof can be etc. And since that’s still not enough to please some people’s desire for perfect conformity, most modern homes layer on top of this special HOA rules, for example restricting what kind of window shades are acceptable and how tall and green your grass most be. These rules are enforced by the local municipality and backed by the force of the police. I have no doubt that there are many people who like single family housing and would buy designs like the common cookie cutter standard if it was part of a truly free market menu, but how much genuine demand exists we will never know, because virtually nothing else is legal and it hasn’t been for two generations now! People generally don’t “want” things they’ve never experienced and have no access to. Just to drive this point home, imagine we passed a law saying that people were only allowed to eat seafood of certain dimensions and without tentacles. Fish, shrimp, and lobster between 1-7 lbs are OK. No squid or octopus. You can cook them however you want, except no grilled salmon is allowed in Vermont. Any other food requires years of community hearings to acquire one-off conditional approvals on a meal by meal basis. Would you find plenty of people who liked seafood and defended this system? Yes. Would you know anything about people’s true preferences if they were allowed to be omnivores? No. That’s what our world has been reduced to, and it’s the product of an almost unfathomably deep and Byzantine regulatory complex by which the government micromanages the built environment around us.
fludlight 6y ago
You can’t do safety without regulation.

cpursley 6y ago

This is one of the main reasons I won't be moving back to the US if I if I can avoid it. Moving to a place built for humans is absolutely life changing. Whenever people where I now live ask what America is like I explain that you can't even purchase food without first owning a car (with a few exceptions).

alostpuppy 6y ago
I live in a nice semi dense area and our one walkable food outlet closed last year. We technically live in a food desert.
axaxs 6y ago
May I ask where you live now, and also in what ways it's built for humans? Just intrigued.
polishdude20 6y ago
Where do you live now?
modularform123 6y ago
I hope you and your family can get the Covid-19 vaccine soon, in whatever great place it is you are living in!
mensetmanusman 6y ago
When our family lived in Boston we did not own a vehicle. Especially now with everyone using post pandemic delivery, it will get even easier to not have to own a vehicle.
- hn_user82179 6y ago
  Yep, Boston frequently tops lists of cities with the best public transportation in the country. Really wish more cities had that infrastructure.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    The underlying requirement for a city to have good public transportation is to have more dense populations, which is almost always only found in older parts of cities. All the newer parts of any city in the previous decades were zoned to be less dense, so you're not going to see comprehensive public transportation any of the cities that have experienced recent growth. It's simply untenable under a certain amount of density, not to mention that most people prefer cars if they have the option to use them.
- nja 6y ago
  Boston is certainly in a better position than a lot of the country. However, even in Boston, being able to be car-free is not always feasible for lower-income folks, especially as development relentlessly moves forward. As an example: the neighborhood I've lived in for a decade used to be a relatively low-income neighborhood. Rents were low in the old buildings, most folks walked to their jobs in the medical area, and there was a cheap Shaws grocery store for food, as well as several fast food places and family-run storefronts. Public transit (light rail, buses, and commuter rail) was accessible close by. Then a development company bought nearly all of the parcels along the main road and built a wall of mid-to-high-rises. Accordingly, all rent in the area went way up, forcing most of the lower-income folks out of even the older, shittier tenement buildings. A Target went in, and the Shaws rebranded as the more expensive Star Market (and will soon close so they can build a new Whole-Foods-type expensive megastore). All of the small storefronts closed, and now the area is nearly entirely high-end shopping outlets and expensive gastro-restaurants. They shut down the bus lines running through the neighborhood because all the rich people who moved in have cars (Porsches and Lambos now rev through the neighborhood at all hours) and bus ridership was down. Where did all of the folks -- and their families -- previously able to afford the area go? To areas of Boston where the rent is still cheap. Many of these places are nowhere near good public transit (e.g. if someone moved from this area of Boston to Dorchester, then took transit to their same job, it would require 3-4 transfers on packed buses and trains). So now these people are forced to get a car as well. The worst part of all of this is: who wins here? Not the people forced to leave their neighborhood, not the people who suddenly need to buy a car, not the people who can no longer afford to run a restaurant in the area... not even the rich people living in the expensive high-rises (or not living in -- many are vacant "investments" from overseas). The developers win. They pumped as much money as they could out of the neighborhood, and then moved on to their next target, leaving a less livable city in their wake.
juancb 6y ago
There may be an untapped market there waiting to be exploited.
- burlesona 6y ago
  There is, but good luck trying to exploit it. You’ll spend a decade pulling permits and you won’t be able to get financing.
devmunchies 6y ago
> Moving to a place built for humans It's a factor of whether the city was built before the industrial revolution. Humans will always default to the easy path. I think it's the exact same paradigm for software bloat. By having higher powered computers, we build websites without needing to optimize, so now you need a high powered computer to run them. Building a city without cars is like developing a video game 30 years ago, much more deliberate use of limited resources.
- retrac 6y ago
  Most of modern Japan's neighbourhoods were built after the war. Tokyo grew from some 4 million people left in the ruins to 12 million in 1980. Tokyo especially, but really the whole country, is even more walking and transit friendly than many of the commonly mentioned places in Western Europe. I think part of it was just a cultural preference, perhaps due to the communal nature of Japanese society. Another part of it was to avoid having to import oil, and to not waste wealth on cars. Gas, and vehicles, were taxed heavily, and still are.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    IIRC a big part is parking policy. Notable differences - the US allows overnight street parking in many places. In Japan overnight street parking is banned. - the US mandates a minimum level of parking in pretty much all construction that in practice is very excessive; most developers build the minimum and nothing more, because they don't feel they need the parking (and often the lots are rarely full). Japan has some parking minimums but they are small. And there is no pressure to increase parking minimums to lessen demand for street parking, because overnight street parking is banned. - when buying a vehicle, Japan requires "proof-of-parking" in a space that is either owned or leased by the buyer. No such mandate exists in the US, so you can buy a car without having provided a place to park it. The above and other policies basically combine so that Japan has free-market parking with specific properties and buildings provided by the market as demand warrants. Whereas the US builds seas of parking without evidence of demand, so every property is surrounded with a sea of parking that pushes properties further from each other and causes driving to increase in a vicious cycle. https://www.reinventingparking.org/2019/12/learn-from-japan.html https://www.reinventingparking.org/2019/12/learn-from-japan....

colinmhayes 6y ago

There are a few places where you don't need a car. I didn't have a car in NYC and now I still don't in Chicago. Of course if you can't afford a car you probably can't afford to move.

burlesona 6y ago
Nor is New York or Chicago a good place to move if you’re very poor, as the housing and cost of living are difficult to manage.
plorkyeran 6y ago
Ironically places where you have happily live without a car tend to be more expensive to live in. It's not just the moving costs; if you can't afford a car you probably also can't afford the rent in a place where you don't need a car.
- Swenrekcah 6y ago
  Probably that has a lot to do with the fact (or my opinion) that places where you can live car-free are also much nicer places to live, thus more sought after. Although I base that mostly on myself I’m sure there is some research into it.
  - cnasc 6y ago
    You would have to pay me to live in New York again
    - dan-robertson 6y ago
      I think this is a reason a lot of people live in New York...
    - stevewodil 6y ago
      Sometimes people are like, 'Why'd you move back to New York?' And I was like, 'I don't know, I just really love the ambience and there's such a charm to the city, you know?

db48x 6y ago

As usual, an over–generalization. Some places are like that, others are not. I myself live in a place that has both good access to the interstate for visits to neighboring towns, and is extremely walkable. There are two grocery stores within half a mile, more than a dozen restaurants, lots of other types of stores, office buildings, etc. It’s not perfect though; it could do with more apartment buildings in amongst the restaurants in my opinion. Still, I generally agree that the permitting process in many places is ridiculous, especially in big cities. But many people do want to live in a house with a yard; it’s not like the government is forcing people to do so.

Sebguer 6y ago
How much is your rent? Because, as OP mentioned: >they're revitalizing as lifestyle areas that are very expensive to live in.
- db48x 6y ago
  More expensive than some, not as expensive as others.
burlesona 6y ago
The government is literally forcing them in the case of virtually all new residential development. In most places it is illegal to have lots under 5000 square feet or more than one family on a lot (no duplexes etc). In many places the lot size restrictions are even more extreme, requiring 10-20k sqft per lot. Almost every inch of the US and Canada has a litany of rules saying that buildings have to be 20’ or more set back from the street and have to leave 5-10’ on each side clear on the sides and rear. Usually they are limited to two stories and in some cases only one. A lot of places take this further with rules on how much of your house has to be brick, or what color the roof can be etc. And since that’s still not enough to please some people’s desire for perfect conformity, most modern homes layer on top of this special HOA rules, for example restricting what kind of window shades are acceptable and how tall and green your grass most be. These rules are enforced by the local municipality and backed by the force of the police. I have no doubt that there are many people who like single family housing and would buy designs like the common cookie cutter standard if it was part of a truly free market menu, but how much genuine demand exists we will never know, because virtually nothing else is legal and it hasn’t been for two generations now! People generally don’t “want” things they’ve never experienced and have no access to. Just to drive this point home, imagine we passed a law saying that people were only allowed to eat seafood of certain dimensions and without tentacles. Fish, shrimp, and lobster between 1-7 lbs are OK. No squid or octopus. You can cook them however you want, except no grilled salmon is allowed in Vermont. Any other food requires years of community hearings to acquire one-off conditional approvals on a meal by meal basis. Would you find plenty of people who liked seafood and defended this system? Yes. Would you know anything about people’s true preferences if they were allowed to be omnivores? No. That’s what our world has been reduced to, and it’s the product of an almost unfathomably deep and Byzantine regulatory complex by which the government micromanages the built environment around us.

fludlight 6y ago

You can’t do safety without regulation.