5 ms·

Because what they have flowing in abundance is a loss in many other ways. Public transit is a generally a worse experience in all but the most urban of places,

by arsome 5y ago

Because what they have flowing in abundance is a loss in many other ways. Public transit is a generally a worse experience in all but the most urban of places, and even then there's often enough problems that make it significantly less desirable. Biking in the winter? Doable, but also pretty miserable in much of the world. People like personal transportation and big detached houses with yards. Car-centric cities are the price we pay for these things. Personally I think it's worth the trade-off, I would have spent the same money on my 2000sqft house as a <400sqft apartment, and having kids and a dog would have been entirely impractical.

soco 5y ago
Which goes to prove that those stroads weren't built by some evil conspiracy, but ordered and enjoyed by a (sizeable?) part of the population. Which is why they are meant to stay in the States, and reviled outside.
Rendello 5y ago
For anyone interested in what _winter_ biking infrastructure could look like, some places in Finland have done a great job. Not for everyone, but popular nonetheless: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU
bobthepanda 5y ago
The problem is not really necessarily that the car centric city exists, though it certainly has externalities related to health and the climate. The problem is that only the car centric city exists. Nice walkable places are in extremely short supply and fetch a premium, and so there exist people who buy into the detached house, car centric lifestyle because it is the only thing available at their price point. It is illegal to build the traditional way in most of the country’s land. And making it simply legal to build does not mean that the people who like this lifestyle will be forced to densify.
- harpersealtako 5y ago
  This is the crux of the issue. I've said it before in HN, but urban density advocates need to focus more on why denser urban neighborhoods are good, rather than focusing on why car-centric suburbs are bad. New urbanists need the support of suburbanites whether they want to admit it or not, railing against people who like having space and privacy is less effective at winning allies than making a solid economic and social case for denser developments. Oftentimes urbanists actually explicitly say they want to "ban surburbs", which does nothing to help their cause or suggest that they are looking for a compromise that involves both dense developments and less dense developments.
  - milkytron 5y ago
    This is why I like the points and objective of Strong Towns. It's mostly about fiscal responsibility and improved quality of life for all. I think those are some objectives we can all rally behind.
rdedev 5y ago
> People like personal transportation and big detached houses with yards I feel it's more like people are conditioned ro like those things. The first time I visited America, I went to my friend's place. It was just homes with big backyards and nothing else. Coming from india, I was frankly disappointed. Staying in a city now and frankly it has much more charecter than those places
cycomanic 5y ago
You write like this was made as a conscious decision, based on city planning somehow. There is significant research that shows people are much happier in walkable communities. Moreover, the car centric solution is not scalable as cities grow. Almost 50% of the world population already live in cities worldwide. That number is estimated to grow to 75% over the next 30 years. It is also interesting that you mention kids. Amongst the poorer and the elderly children are kids the main group to really suffer from the car centric design of cities. Essentially, you completely restrict their mobility, preventing them to move around on their own accord and instead making them relent on parents to drive them somewhere. I would not be surprised if this significantly contributes to the problems of children becoming less and less resilient and independent.
lmm 5y ago
> People like personal transportation and big detached houses with yards. Then why are even small houses in walkable neighbourhoods so expensive? Maybe not everyone wants to live like that, but there's clearly demand for that kind of living too. Let's build some for people who want it.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >Then why are even small houses in walkable neighbourhoods so expensive Location Location Location These small houses are pretty much all necessarily in urban areas and the prices reflects what overpaid doctors lawyers and techies are willing to pay for convenience. The not un-walkable suburbs that are roughly the same distance from the city centers suffer pretty much the same price increase for the same reason.
moooo99 5y ago
> People like personal transportation and big detached houses with yards. Car-centric cities are the price we pay for these things. Maybe people don’t even like Personal transport that much, maybe they only use it because of the lack of suitable alternatives? Maybe many people don’t have the „single family home whatever it takes“ attitude and would much prefer a suitable apartment in a somewhat dense walkable neighborhood? It’s no coincidence that the few relatively quiet very walkable neighborhoods often are the most desired places in a city, even here in German cities where the issue is nowhere near as extreme as it is in the US. Also, car dependency is not just a city planning issue. Car dependency increases the risk of obesity and often results in overall bad health. And what about the kids? Children are totally dependent on their parents for anything transport related until they can drive themselves. Cycling doesn’t seem to be encouraged, let alone walking. Public transport maybe works for school, but rarely for leisure activities. How do you want to raise independent adults if they are totally dependent on you for something as basic as transportation?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- thehappypm 5y ago
  I use public transit every day, I love it. I used to live in a city with a light rail system 2 blocks away. Even with that, I would still find it easier to drive and park downtown due to the delays, congestion, and slowness of the light rail line. Walk 5 minutes, wait 5 minutes, cram on, take 20 minute ride, walk 5 minutes VS 15 minute drive. Public transit needs to be either faster or cheaper than driving and it rarely is.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
> People like personal transportation and big detached houses with yards. People like these houses so much we have to pass laws banning other types of homes on most of our residential land. Gotta make sure they don't accidentally demand the wrong type of housing!
- renewiltord 5y ago
  That is rather suspicious. If people are so fond of this, then why the laws prohibiting the other. It sounds like there’s a pressure group distorting the market and preventing people from expressing their preferences. Fairly convincing actually.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    It's NIMBYism and zoning. People individually may want/demand apartments or townhomes or duplexes, but for various reasons it's common to outlaw all those things via local zoning regulations on most of the residential land in a city or town. Even in major cities, this is usually true (though of course there's some exceptions), that most of the land is reserved exclusively for detached single family homes on large lots. In contrast, some countries like Germany or Japan don't have that type of zoning anywhere in the entire country. Of course, they still have many single family homes, you're just not required to live in one if you want to live on a particular street. I don't want to get into the justifications for mandatory SFH zoning, but the results are pretty clear: it makes walking, biking and transit worse (and thus makes people less healthy and fatter); it results in economic segregation, as a working class family can't move to an affluent area by moving into a smaller home there, because smaller homes there are illegal; lastly, it means higher housing costs, because you can't put as much housing in a given area to meet demand (this also tends to increase commute times, as people go further out from the job center area to reduce costs).
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    It's not that suspicious. People who like their quality of life in their city and neighborhood don't want to lose that. This is perfectly normal and legitimate. Those who want higher density are usually either outsiders who want to live there but can't, or developers (or departing residents) who seek to make money by flipping a property for cheaply-built denser properties. If you increase density, you end up changing people's quality of life, and often for the worse. Density introduces other problems - different neighborhood feel, less intimacy, more traffic, more people crowding up parks, changing local politics, worse public safety, etc. It is because people are fond of a high quality life they enjoy that they're against such change. The other comment here using pejoratives like NIMBY to denigrate those who care about protecting their way of living is just drawing a convenient caricature.

by arsome 5y ago

soco 5y ago

Which goes to prove that those stroads weren't built by some evil conspiracy, but ordered and enjoyed by a (sizeable?) part of the population. Which is why they are meant to stay in the States, and reviled outside.

Rendello 5y ago

For anyone interested in what _winter_ biking infrastructure could look like, some places in Finland have done a great job. Not for everyone, but popular nonetheless: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU

bobthepanda 5y ago

The problem is not really necessarily that the car centric city exists, though it certainly has externalities related to health and the climate. The problem is that only the car centric city exists. Nice walkable places are in extremely short supply and fetch a premium, and so there exist people who buy into the detached house, car centric lifestyle because it is the only thing available at their price point. It is illegal to build the traditional way in most of the country’s land. And making it simply legal to build does not mean that the people who like this lifestyle will be forced to densify.

harpersealtako 5y ago
This is the crux of the issue. I've said it before in HN, but urban density advocates need to focus more on why denser urban neighborhoods are good, rather than focusing on why car-centric suburbs are bad. New urbanists need the support of suburbanites whether they want to admit it or not, railing against people who like having space and privacy is less effective at winning allies than making a solid economic and social case for denser developments. Oftentimes urbanists actually explicitly say they want to "ban surburbs", which does nothing to help their cause or suggest that they are looking for a compromise that involves both dense developments and less dense developments.
- milkytron 5y ago
  This is why I like the points and objective of Strong Towns. It's mostly about fiscal responsibility and improved quality of life for all. I think those are some objectives we can all rally behind.

rdedev 5y ago

> People like personal transportation and big detached houses with yards I feel it's more like people are conditioned ro like those things. The first time I visited America, I went to my friend's place. It was just homes with big backyards and nothing else. Coming from india, I was frankly disappointed. Staying in a city now and frankly it has much more charecter than those places

cycomanic 5y ago

You write like this was made as a conscious decision, based on city planning somehow. There is significant research that shows people are much happier in walkable communities. Moreover, the car centric solution is not scalable as cities grow. Almost 50% of the world population already live in cities worldwide. That number is estimated to grow to 75% over the next 30 years. It is also interesting that you mention kids. Amongst the poorer and the elderly children are kids the main group to really suffer from the car centric design of cities. Essentially, you completely restrict their mobility, preventing them to move around on their own accord and instead making them relent on parents to drive them somewhere. I would not be surprised if this significantly contributes to the problems of children becoming less and less resilient and independent.

lmm 5y ago

> People like personal transportation and big detached houses with yards. Then why are even small houses in walkable neighbourhoods so expensive? Maybe not everyone wants to live like that, but there's clearly demand for that kind of living too. Let's build some for people who want it.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>Then why are even small houses in walkable neighbourhoods so expensive Location Location Location These small houses are pretty much all necessarily in urban areas and the prices reflects what overpaid doctors lawyers and techies are willing to pay for convenience. The not un-walkable suburbs that are roughly the same distance from the city centers suffer pretty much the same price increase for the same reason.

moooo99 5y ago

> People like personal transportation and big detached houses with yards. Car-centric cities are the price we pay for these things. Maybe people don’t even like Personal transport that much, maybe they only use it because of the lack of suitable alternatives? Maybe many people don’t have the „single family home whatever it takes“ attitude and would much prefer a suitable apartment in a somewhat dense walkable neighborhood? It’s no coincidence that the few relatively quiet very walkable neighborhoods often are the most desired places in a city, even here in German cities where the issue is nowhere near as extreme as it is in the US. Also, car dependency is not just a city planning issue. Car dependency increases the risk of obesity and often results in overall bad health. And what about the kids? Children are totally dependent on their parents for anything transport related until they can drive themselves. Cycling doesn’t seem to be encouraged, let alone walking. Public transport maybe works for school, but rarely for leisure activities. How do you want to raise independent adults if they are totally dependent on you for something as basic as transportation?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
thehappypm 5y ago
I use public transit every day, I love it. I used to live in a city with a light rail system 2 blocks away. Even with that, I would still find it easier to drive and park downtown due to the delays, congestion, and slowness of the light rail line. Walk 5 minutes, wait 5 minutes, cram on, take 20 minute ride, walk 5 minutes VS 15 minute drive. Public transit needs to be either faster or cheaper than driving and it rarely is.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

> People like personal transportation and big detached houses with yards. People like these houses so much we have to pass laws banning other types of homes on most of our residential land. Gotta make sure they don't accidentally demand the wrong type of housing!

renewiltord 5y ago
That is rather suspicious. If people are so fond of this, then why the laws prohibiting the other. It sounds like there’s a pressure group distorting the market and preventing people from expressing their preferences. Fairly convincing actually.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  It's NIMBYism and zoning. People individually may want/demand apartments or townhomes or duplexes, but for various reasons it's common to outlaw all those things via local zoning regulations on most of the residential land in a city or town. Even in major cities, this is usually true (though of course there's some exceptions), that most of the land is reserved exclusively for detached single family homes on large lots. In contrast, some countries like Germany or Japan don't have that type of zoning anywhere in the entire country. Of course, they still have many single family homes, you're just not required to live in one if you want to live on a particular street. I don't want to get into the justifications for mandatory SFH zoning, but the results are pretty clear: it makes walking, biking and transit worse (and thus makes people less healthy and fatter); it results in economic segregation, as a working class family can't move to an affluent area by moving into a smaller home there, because smaller homes there are illegal; lastly, it means higher housing costs, because you can't put as much housing in a given area to meet demand (this also tends to increase commute times, as people go further out from the job center area to reduce costs).
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  It's not that suspicious. People who like their quality of life in their city and neighborhood don't want to lose that. This is perfectly normal and legitimate. Those who want higher density are usually either outsiders who want to live there but can't, or developers (or departing residents) who seek to make money by flipping a property for cheaply-built denser properties. If you increase density, you end up changing people's quality of life, and often for the worse. Density introduces other problems - different neighborhood feel, less intimacy, more traffic, more people crowding up parks, changing local politics, worse public safety, etc. It is because people are fond of a high quality life they enjoy that they're against such change. The other comment here using pejoratives like NIMBY to denigrate those who care about protecting their way of living is just drawing a convenient caricature.