4 ms·

Since most comments are personal stories, here's mine as usual. Until I was 29 I didn't know how to drive, and walked/bike/took transit everywhere, living in Mo

by sershe 4y ago

Since most comments are personal stories, here's mine as usual. Until I was 29 I didn't know how to drive, and walked/bike/took transit everywhere, living in Moscow Russia, downtown Vancouver BC, Bellevue WA. I also derided suburbs to the point where my most non libertarian belief was that they should only allow short term rentals for personal-use cars, via a very large tax on ownership like iirc in Denmark but higher - so you could rent one to go to the mountains or such, and nothing else. Phase it in over few decades so society reorganizes and car-centric areas die. When I learned to drive and got a car, I kept living in walkable areas, and my opinions didn't change much. Finally I moved to semi-suburbs (not even real suburbs, walkscore in the low 60s - not that I actually walk much) and realized I was wrong most of my life! The walkable areas are awesome for (1) children who can't drive, (2) frequent drinkers - so me until about ~26. After that, it was just inertia. For anything else, car-centric life is vastly better and walkable areas/transit mostly suck. I didn't even realize how much inconvenience I used to endure, it's like living without good heating and considering indoor layering and being cold the normal life, but then getting good heating.

zzleeper 4y ago
I'm not sure Bellevue or Moscow are that walkable. A walkable city is not just one where you can walk from A to B but where doing so is easy. For instance, think about downtown Barcelona. You can go to a bakery one block away on foot, then to the supermarket on the way back, and have easy access to tram/bus/metro/bike in every other case. Sure, you often want to use the car, but for most cases it's not needed. Within the US, maybe NY and parts of DC/Boston fit this... otherwise the lack of density makes it too inconvenient.
- sershe 4y ago
  Bellevue WA downtown in particular is not ideal, but walkable. The only place I couldn't walk to was climbing gym, and also there's a big transit hub in the middle. Moscow is very walkable, even in most outer "apartment block suburbs" you can do anything within 2-7min walk. Plus it has frictionless subway 5am-1:30am or so - not like in NYC; on major lines train intervals are/used to be less than 1 minute at rush hour, and 7-8mins at 1am - so, you never even need to plan, you just go. Things tend to cluster around stations so city map becomes kinda like a 4x galaxy map of stuff. Walkability tends to decrease 10-20mins away from subway stations on foot, with more industrial areas and such, although basics like groceries and some cafes would still be there. Based on touristic experience in Europe (Germany, Spain although not Barcelona, Italy, England, etc.) it's about as walkable, across most of the city, for daily needs as European city centers. But why would I want to walk with X groceries for 5mins (potentially in the cold, heat, rain, ...), when I could drive for 15mins in comfort and get 5X groceries in one trip? Why would I take frictionless subway to a stadium for a concert when in a car centric city traffic allows one to just uber? Why would I walk to a whatever local X is available when I can drive to the best X in a large area in the same time? Or for more specialized hobbies, e.g. climbing gyms or large swimming pools, of which there may be 1-10 per city, and 1-2 good ones, why would I plan to live near one or endure transit when I could be much more flexible if I drive to one in a car friendly city? Etc.
ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
> The walkable areas are awesome for (1) children who can't drive, (2) frequent drinkers - so me until about ~26. After that, it was just inertia. For anything else, car-centric life is vastly better and walkable areas/transit mostly suck. If you ever want to disabuse yourself of this (bullshit) notion, simply spend four weeks in Barcelona. Transit sucks in countries which have prioritized car-centricity and neglected investment.
- sershe 4y ago
  It's like you didn't read my comment. Why would Barcelona be different? I've lived in Vancouver where I had (priorities at that time) like 5 sushi restaurants within 5min walk and a number of bars and nightclubs within 5-10, and bus to my office within 1 minute. I've lived in Moscow where likewise everything was very short walking distance and subway is much better than anywhere in the US, frequency/coverage wise. And in my limited experience better (except for crowds) than e.g. in Munich or even London, only Tokyo really compares. I thought it was good and cars sucked, but I've disabused myself of that notion once I've discovered the wonders of suburbia.

by sershe 4y ago

zzleeper 4y ago

I'm not sure Bellevue or Moscow are that walkable. A walkable city is not just one where you can walk from A to B but where doing so is easy. For instance, think about downtown Barcelona. You can go to a bakery one block away on foot, then to the supermarket on the way back, and have easy access to tram/bus/metro/bike in every other case. Sure, you often want to use the car, but for most cases it's not needed. Within the US, maybe NY and parts of DC/Boston fit this... otherwise the lack of density makes it too inconvenient.

sershe 4y ago
Bellevue WA downtown in particular is not ideal, but walkable. The only place I couldn't walk to was climbing gym, and also there's a big transit hub in the middle. Moscow is very walkable, even in most outer "apartment block suburbs" you can do anything within 2-7min walk. Plus it has frictionless subway 5am-1:30am or so - not like in NYC; on major lines train intervals are/used to be less than 1 minute at rush hour, and 7-8mins at 1am - so, you never even need to plan, you just go. Things tend to cluster around stations so city map becomes kinda like a 4x galaxy map of stuff. Walkability tends to decrease 10-20mins away from subway stations on foot, with more industrial areas and such, although basics like groceries and some cafes would still be there. Based on touristic experience in Europe (Germany, Spain although not Barcelona, Italy, England, etc.) it's about as walkable, across most of the city, for daily needs as European city centers. But why would I want to walk with X groceries for 5mins (potentially in the cold, heat, rain, ...), when I could drive for 15mins in comfort and get 5X groceries in one trip? Why would I take frictionless subway to a stadium for a concert when in a car centric city traffic allows one to just uber? Why would I walk to a whatever local X is available when I can drive to the best X in a large area in the same time? Or for more specialized hobbies, e.g. climbing gyms or large swimming pools, of which there may be 1-10 per city, and 1-2 good ones, why would I plan to live near one or endure transit when I could be much more flexible if I drive to one in a car friendly city? Etc.

ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago

> The walkable areas are awesome for (1) children who can't drive, (2) frequent drinkers - so me until about ~26. After that, it was just inertia. For anything else, car-centric life is vastly better and walkable areas/transit mostly suck. If you ever want to disabuse yourself of this (bullshit) notion, simply spend four weeks in Barcelona. Transit sucks in countries which have prioritized car-centricity and neglected investment.

sershe 4y ago
It's like you didn't read my comment. Why would Barcelona be different? I've lived in Vancouver where I had (priorities at that time) like 5 sushi restaurants within 5min walk and a number of bars and nightclubs within 5-10, and bus to my office within 1 minute. I've lived in Moscow where likewise everything was very short walking distance and subway is much better than anywhere in the US, frequency/coverage wise. And in my limited experience better (except for crowds) than e.g. in Munich or even London, only Tokyo really compares. I thought it was good and cars sucked, but I've disabused myself of that notion once I've discovered the wonders of suburbia.