5 ms·

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. Whenev

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.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    I'd just add that Boston also just doesn't have a car-free culture like Manhattan in particular has. So even if you're a middle-class/upper-middle-class tech worker who wants to live in the city: 1.) Many of the tech jobs are in the suburbs and you mostly need a car to get to them. (There are today more jobs in the city again but many aren't.) 2.) Many of your friends probably live in transit unfriendly suburbs so you'll probably find it hard to get together with them unless they come in to meet you. Of course, people adapt to what is easier for them and just behave accordingly.
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....

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.
- ghaff 6y ago
  I'd just add that Boston also just doesn't have a car-free culture like Manhattan in particular has. So even if you're a middle-class/upper-middle-class tech worker who wants to live in the city: 1.) Many of the tech jobs are in the suburbs and you mostly need a car to get to them. (There are today more jobs in the city again but many aren't.) 2.) Many of your friends probably live in transit unfriendly suburbs so you'll probably find it hard to get together with them unless they come in to meet you. Of course, people adapt to what is easier for them and just behave accordingly.

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....