5 ms·

I love the car and car culture. I've road tripped across the U.S. and live in an RV. I will never go back to living in an apartment. There's no human connection

I love the car and car culture. I've road tripped across the U.S. and live in an RV. I will never go back to living in an apartment. There's no human connection there. I spent years living in apartments and maybe met one or two people, with no meaningful connections ever developed. Cars are great for road tripping, and America is highly optimized for it. You can, with the same vehicle, without unpacking once, travel from the Atlantic ocean to the Pacific ocean in a matter of days. You can visit the mountains, beaches, camp in hundreds of national and state parks (for cheap or free). In Florida, some of my fondest memories was jumping into two cars with my teenage friends and riding out the one hour drive to Daytona, where we'd drive our car literally on the beach and then plop down right next to it, sneaking sips of Natural Light that we illegally smuggled there between sessions of football and boogey boarding. Then we'd get back in the car and be back before curfew. All of our vacations were to the Smokey Mountains, a mere 9 hour drive from central Florida. Dad would drive overnight in our minivan while us kids slept in the back seats. We'd pull up to a cabin first thing in the morning and excitedly rush to our claim our beds for the few days we'd be staying there. Despite sleeping a little rough in the car, we were more than energized by the newness of the locale and the existence of elevation we were quite unfamiliar with back home on the relatively flat peninsula, and we'd proceed to hike the woods around the cabin to survey the land. Plenty of human and natural connection is to be had with your own vehicle in America. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

Steltek 4y ago
Your positive examples all have one thing in common: they're not happening in cities. Just because a car makes sense in the countryside or beach does not mean it makes sense inside of a city. A problem with our approach to urban planning is that we get large, sterile apartment buildings or detached single family homes but absolutely nothing in between. If that missing middle was allowed by right, you'd find what I enjoy right now: both human connections and a car-lite lifestyle.
- hardnose 4y ago
  >they're not happening in cities. Neither is people willingly moving there. Dense urban living might appeal to young people but once you build a family and priorities change to peace & quiet, safety, good schools, and stable property values, dense urban living loses most of its appeal.
  - azemetre 4y ago
    - tekknik 4y ago
      Where did you grow up? In an apartment or with a lawn?
      - azemetre 4y ago
        I grew up in a rural town (originally zoned for agriculture) where slowly over the next three decades became a town where rich doctors, lawyers, and accountants live now. I always get a kick seeing a certain individual sell a plot of farm land to build condos that now sell for $600k each next to a pond where I would fish as a kid. My ancestral home costs $80,000 and the land alone today is worth nearly a million dollars. Florida is definitely a case study where while zoning is relaxed, planning has little to zero forethought. Growing up during this transition sucked. My family was poor so I didn't get a car until I was 21; there were also no sidewalks to walk anywhere, nearest bus stop was 3 miles from my home. It blew, I had to rely on my parents to do anything. There was no independence for me. If I wanted to go to a friends house that was 2 miles away, I'd have to walk across 3 difference highways and busy roads; highly dangerous for a 12 year old. I remember visiting a cousin that lived Cambridge, MA and I was so jealous that she was able to do what she wanted without a car. She was 14 and had access to nearly the entire Cambridge/Boston/Quincy area by virtue of just walking. Bonus? My Aunt and Uncle had a SFH in Cambridge. It is possible to develop areas like this. It's not a switch you turn on or off, but we purposely limit these areas to the affluent: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/11/3/our-self-imposed-scarcity-of-nice-places https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/11/3/our-self-impos... Now nearly 15 years later, I can live a similar lifestyle my cousin did but only because I have a well paying tech job. edit: after reading some other replies you made, I'm not trying to make an either or situation but simply give people a choice on where to live. Walkable communities are extremely popular in the US, it's where land value is extremely high and homes are desirable. It's not just limited to NYC or Chicago or Boston, there are walkable towns in Minnesota (Milwaukee Avenue, Minneapolis) and even Florida (Seaside); if there were more walkable cities in the US I would bet my life's labor that they would become populated easily.
pkulak 4y ago
- twblalock 4y ago
  Most public transit is subsidized by taxes too.
  - pkulak 4y ago
    And so are schools, and lighthouses, and all kinds of other things that benefit society. Subsidizing polluting nomads who eat up highway capacity and free parking isn't an intentional policy that we've all decided to do because we like the result. EDIT: which is to say that cities can exist as the tax-generating powerhouses that they are _because_ they subsidize public transportation. That subsidized city transit is why we can afford to maintain the highway system.
    - skyyler 4y ago
      >That subsidized city transit is why we can afford to maintain the highway system. I don't think this follows... Cities that don't have good public transit still generate tax revenue.
      - pkulak 4y ago
        Yeah, but not on the level of NYC, Chicago, SF, and LA (which actually has decent public transport (for the US), despite the reputation). Yes, then there are cities like Houston, but they are paying for 16-lane urban freeways, which have to at least cancel out any cost savings from not having much public transport.
        skyyler 4y ago
        Do you have any data on this? It seems like a chicken-and-egg problem. Spending on public transit means there's budget for infrastructure. Highways being built means there's budget for infrastructure. Budget for infrastructure means infrastructure gets built. It seems almost... Tautological.

Steltek 4y ago

Your positive examples all have one thing in common: they're not happening in cities. Just because a car makes sense in the countryside or beach does not mean it makes sense inside of a city. A problem with our approach to urban planning is that we get large, sterile apartment buildings or detached single family homes but absolutely nothing in between. If that missing middle was allowed by right, you'd find what I enjoy right now: both human connections and a car-lite lifestyle.

hardnose 4y ago
>they're not happening in cities. Neither is people willingly moving there. Dense urban living might appeal to young people but once you build a family and priorities change to peace & quiet, safety, good schools, and stable property values, dense urban living loses most of its appeal.
- azemetre 4y ago
  - tekknik 4y ago
    Where did you grow up? In an apartment or with a lawn?
    - azemetre 4y ago
      I grew up in a rural town (originally zoned for agriculture) where slowly over the next three decades became a town where rich doctors, lawyers, and accountants live now. I always get a kick seeing a certain individual sell a plot of farm land to build condos that now sell for $600k each next to a pond where I would fish as a kid. My ancestral home costs $80,000 and the land alone today is worth nearly a million dollars. Florida is definitely a case study where while zoning is relaxed, planning has little to zero forethought. Growing up during this transition sucked. My family was poor so I didn't get a car until I was 21; there were also no sidewalks to walk anywhere, nearest bus stop was 3 miles from my home. It blew, I had to rely on my parents to do anything. There was no independence for me. If I wanted to go to a friends house that was 2 miles away, I'd have to walk across 3 difference highways and busy roads; highly dangerous for a 12 year old. I remember visiting a cousin that lived Cambridge, MA and I was so jealous that she was able to do what she wanted without a car. She was 14 and had access to nearly the entire Cambridge/Boston/Quincy area by virtue of just walking. Bonus? My Aunt and Uncle had a SFH in Cambridge. It is possible to develop areas like this. It's not a switch you turn on or off, but we purposely limit these areas to the affluent: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/11/3/our-self-imposed-scarcity-of-nice-places https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/11/3/our-self-impos... Now nearly 15 years later, I can live a similar lifestyle my cousin did but only because I have a well paying tech job. edit: after reading some other replies you made, I'm not trying to make an either or situation but simply give people a choice on where to live. Walkable communities are extremely popular in the US, it's where land value is extremely high and homes are desirable. It's not just limited to NYC or Chicago or Boston, there are walkable towns in Minnesota (Milwaukee Avenue, Minneapolis) and even Florida (Seaside); if there were more walkable cities in the US I would bet my life's labor that they would become populated easily.

pkulak 4y ago

twblalock 4y ago
Most public transit is subsidized by taxes too.
- pkulak 4y ago
  And so are schools, and lighthouses, and all kinds of other things that benefit society. Subsidizing polluting nomads who eat up highway capacity and free parking isn't an intentional policy that we've all decided to do because we like the result. EDIT: which is to say that cities can exist as the tax-generating powerhouses that they are _because_ they subsidize public transportation. That subsidized city transit is why we can afford to maintain the highway system.
  - skyyler 4y ago
    >That subsidized city transit is why we can afford to maintain the highway system. I don't think this follows... Cities that don't have good public transit still generate tax revenue.
    - pkulak 4y ago
      Yeah, but not on the level of NYC, Chicago, SF, and LA (which actually has decent public transport (for the US), despite the reputation). Yes, then there are cities like Houston, but they are paying for 16-lane urban freeways, which have to at least cancel out any cost savings from not having much public transport.
      - skyyler 4y ago
        Do you have any data on this? It seems like a chicken-and-egg problem. Spending on public transit means there's budget for infrastructure. Highways being built means there's budget for infrastructure. Budget for infrastructure means infrastructure gets built. It seems almost... Tautological.