4 ms·

Who cares? If Americans want room to drive and get places and park then let them. If my suburban town 25 miles away from a major city’s downtown got rid of stre

Who cares? If Americans want room to drive and get places and park then let them. If my suburban town 25 miles away from a major city’s downtown got rid of streets and places to park, me and 95% of the other residents would just move another 15 miles further.

voisin 4y ago
> Who cares? If Americans want room to drive and get places and park then let them. It’s terrible for the environment and leads to soulless shitty suburbs rather than vibrant, dense neighbourhoods.
- donatj 4y ago
  How is having some open space worse for the environment than being tightly packed? That seems baseless
  - ripley12 4y ago
    Scenario 1: lots of land dedicated to car storage, people are spread out, commutes are longer and must be done by car Scenario 2: less land dedicated to parking, people live closer together, commutes are shorter and can more often be done by bike/transit/walking It's pretty clear which of those is better for the environment.
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      Which one is better for your environment? Pollution filled cities or open country air?
      - nayuki 4y ago
        Cars cause the pollution. Cities would be cleaner if suburbanites didn't drive in.
        ipaddr 4y ago
        Cars are only a small part of the pollution problem.
        c-cube 4y ago
        Then please inform us on what causes the bulk of pollution in cities. It's certainly not metros or bicycles.
  - kasey_junk 4y ago
    Parking lots vs tightly packed is a false dichotomy. You could use the parking lot space for parks for instance.
  - virgildotcodes 4y ago
    If you concentrate all the people into a small area you use less energy for transportation and you use less land overall, it's a lot more efficient.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
    Dense urban life is far more environmentally friendly and efficient in terms of consumption than suburban life.
    - LooseMarmoset 4y ago
      I call shenanigans. Take a look at any dense urban environment: * Concrete and asphalt EVERYWHERE. Ask yourself about the carbon cost of all that concrete - which, in the northeast, requires constant repair. * Street lighting - I mean, you can see dense, urban areas from freaking space - think about all the energy that takes. Is that environmentally friendly and efficient? * Heat islands - Dense, urban areas concentrate so much heat they literally change local weather. * I've got an entire ecosystem of nature right in my back yard. Trees, wildflowers, grass, an array of wildlife, even a small garden growing local food (that the deer and groundhogs are determined to eat). What do dense, urban environments have? A practical monoculture of pigeons and rats?
      - xracy 4y ago
        You are more disruptive to that environment in your back yard than you would be if you moved to a city. That's exactly the problem. Any asphalt and concrete you add is sustaining 1 person. Any asphalt and concrete in an urban place is sustaining 1000s of people. You burn more fossil fuels in the winter to stay warm. You burn more fossil fuels to provide 1 source of light that only you use. The multiplier you're missing is the number of people we service with the things we're doing in an urban environment.
        ipaddr 4y ago
        Why do you assume parent burns more fossil fuels? Having a 1,000s crammed into small spaces is China and that populatin density caused covid, sars, etc to spread. It's not health physically or for your psychology to live in an endless noise, light polluting environment.
        nayuki 4y ago
  - throw0101c 4y ago
    > How is having some open space worse for the environment than being tightly packed? All that open space means things are farther apart and you have to expend more energy to get from Point A to Point B. Less density means more joules per capita for transportation: * https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/environmental-footprint-of-transportation/urban-density-energy-consumption/ https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/environment... Does it take more energy to drive 5 minutes to the store to pick up some milk and eggs, or to walk (or cycle) 5 minutes to the store? * https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/26/14388942/building-energy-use-density https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/26/14388942/bu...
  - xracy 4y ago
    I live in a 1600 sqft house on a 5600 sqft lot. If everyone in the US lived in that area, we would take up ~51,423,324 acres (assuming population of 400 million). (~2.7% of the Continental US) If instead, every person took up 800 sqft in an apartment building, and assuming absolutely no vertical building, we would take up ~1/7th of that space (7,346,189 acres, 0.38% of the Continental US). That would free up ~44 Million acres of open space. Every level up you build, you get to increase the amount of open space by A further 6/7ths of the previous value. Now, Admittedly, this is back-of-the-envelope math that doesn't work for all scenarios (farms and whatnot are a separate thing). But pretending that suburbanism is better for "open space" is a load of BS. Urbanism provides more open space.
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      What's wrong with using 2.7% for housing? That seems low compared to many countries. Isn't that the American dream?
      - cycomanic 4y ago
        As the article established you then need to take up a similar amount of space for parking, then add the roads so suddenly you're at 10%. I thought you want open spaces?
        ipaddr 4y ago
        I want less density which makes neighbourhoods have more open spaces. Stacking everyone together in a small postal stamp area creates more overall land that may be open but it creates less open areas where people live.
        goosedragons 4y ago
        I dunno about you but I'd rather have one or two parks in an area than a sea of parking lots.
        4y ago
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  I like my suburb :)
  - jen20 4y ago
    I'd be a lot more amenable to suburbs if they weren't used to try to enforce puritanical ideals - it's usually impossible to walk to a bar from one (much less to a choice of bars). Some people fix that problem by driving drunk (the stats aren't pretty), but I fix it by living somewhere where there are bars within walking distance, and will not countenance the idea of living in a suburb even if it would cost me 3x less for the same space.
    - lotsoweiners 4y ago
      I live in about the most suburban area imaginable and I could walk to 3 bars in under a mile and probably 3 more in 1 1/2.
      - jen20 4y ago
        Where is this - sounds perhaps ok!
- LooseMarmoset 4y ago
  The words "vibrant, dense neighborhoods" might mean "high crime, low privacy, and high noise" to people who prefer living elsewhere. Lots of people write glowingly about the "gritty, vibrant" streets of 1970s New York City too. Places like that helped spur the move to the suburbs - ask yourself why.
  - noelherrick 4y ago
    Pretty sure that was just racism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#United_States
dminvs 4y ago
It's possible to create parking space that isn't surface lots
goosedragons 4y ago
Because it's a terrible, unsustainable way to do society? Should we be dumping our trash on the streets too? I mean who cares?
- richwater 4y ago
  Humans shouldn't be living in shoeboxes stacked 40 floors high. It's disgusting.
  - barbazoo 4y ago
    > Humans shouldn't be living in shoeboxes stacked 40 floors high. It's disgusting. Strawman. No one said anything about 40 floor high shoeboxes.
  - com2kid 4y ago
    The medium density townhome I lived in had more green space accessible to me than the single family home I'm in now. Turns out 2 large yards are plenty for even 100 families, and lawn care is super affordable when split 100 ways!
    - lotsoweiners 4y ago
      That sounds terrible. I have a yard with a nice block wall and privacy hedges growing over the top. I have a pool, spa, 100s of plants in my garden, every type of bbq contraption you can think of, a large tv and other games for lounging and best of all, I decide who besides my family can be there. I don’t have random teenagers, homeless people, or quincenaras with mariachi bands in my backyard.
      - com2kid 4y ago
        I'm talking about medium density urban housing, preferably on mass transit lines and in walkable neighborhoods. My car gets under 100 miles of use a week. Excluding commuting to work, during the summer months I literally do not have to drive if I don't want to. Within walking distance of me there is a public library, 2 bakeries, 3 grocery stores, a public pool, a wading pools, 2 very large parks, 1 of which has equipped with grills, and 1 smaller neighborhood park. If I want to ride a bike, and extend my range out to all of 3 miles, then that list gets absurdly long. I don't even live in a dense part of Seattle, I just happen to live in the city proper.
__derek__ 4y ago
> my suburban town 25 miles away from a major city’s downtown The article is explicitly about city centers, not suburbs let alone outer ones.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throw0101c 4y ago
> Who cares? People who want fiscally responsible government? "The Many Costs of Too Much Parking": * https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/11/20/the-many-costs-of-too-much-parking https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/11/20/the-many-cost... And that's not even getting into high(er) density areas subsidizing low(er) density areas: * https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason... * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI * https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-public-more-than-twice-as-much-as-compact-development/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-publ... * https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/16/when-apartment-dwellers-subsidize-suburban-homeowners https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/16/when-apartment... Want to live in low(er) density areas? Go ahead: but stop externalizing the costs onto others.
- pookah 4y ago
  > People who want fiscally responsible government? The Washington D.C metro is a multi-billion dollar money pit from hell that's mismanaged and filled with graft, death and delays. California built a 1 billion dollar bus station that nearly collapsed on itself. In the US, some of the most fiscally un-responsible transportation is public government run transportation.
  - throw0101c 4y ago
    > […] mismanaged and filled with graft, death and delays. So no different than highway construction then? The seventh annual report of Highway Boondoggles: * https://frontiergroup.org/resources/highway-boondoggles/ https://frontiergroup.org/resources/highway-boondoggles/ And let's not forget that it's been empirically measured for decades that building more roads/highways doesn't decrease congestion: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand And that car-oriented 'improvements' makes things worse for drivers and worse for those for those taking public transit (often due to not being able to afford a car): > It is a paradox in that improvements in the road network will not reduce traffic congestion. Improvements in the road network can make congestion worse if the improvements make public transport more inconvenient or if they shift investment, causing disinvestment in the public transport system. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs–Thomson_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs–Thomson_paradox And that improving things for non-car users can actually make things better for drivers: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k * https://fortune.com/2015/09/30/best-country-drive-waze/ https://fortune.com/2015/09/30/best-country-drive-waze/ * https://archive.ph/S4FKM https://archive.ph/S4FKM In no instantiation of the multiverse does the data show that focusing on car-centric development and private automobile transportation is more efficient, from a fiscal or energy point of view, or better for individuals' health and things like climate change. Certainly roads are useful for commerce and trade, but personal transportation? Not so much.
notacoward 4y ago
> If Americans want room to drive and get places and park then let them. You do realize that much of that parking exists because of mandates and subsidies, right? If Americans want something else then let them. Does your interest in letting people make their own choices extend to other people's choices as well as your own?
QIYGT 4y ago
> If Americans want room to drive and get places and park A whole lot of Americans don't want that. You can tell by how much more expensive it is to live in walkable city centers than in suburbs.
- kortilla 4y ago
  You’re not adjusting for per-capita. The supply is much smaller for walkable city centers so a much smaller population can support the higher cost.

voisin 4y ago

> Who cares? If Americans want room to drive and get places and park then let them. It’s terrible for the environment and leads to soulless shitty suburbs rather than vibrant, dense neighbourhoods.

donatj 4y ago
How is having some open space worse for the environment than being tightly packed? That seems baseless
- ripley12 4y ago
  Scenario 1: lots of land dedicated to car storage, people are spread out, commutes are longer and must be done by car Scenario 2: less land dedicated to parking, people live closer together, commutes are shorter and can more often be done by bike/transit/walking It's pretty clear which of those is better for the environment.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    Which one is better for your environment? Pollution filled cities or open country air?
    - nayuki 4y ago
      Cars cause the pollution. Cities would be cleaner if suburbanites didn't drive in.
      - ipaddr 4y ago
        Cars are only a small part of the pollution problem.
        c-cube 4y ago
        Then please inform us on what causes the bulk of pollution in cities. It's certainly not metros or bicycles.
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  Parking lots vs tightly packed is a false dichotomy. You could use the parking lot space for parks for instance.
- virgildotcodes 4y ago
  If you concentrate all the people into a small area you use less energy for transportation and you use less land overall, it's a lot more efficient.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
  Dense urban life is far more environmentally friendly and efficient in terms of consumption than suburban life.
  - LooseMarmoset 4y ago
    I call shenanigans. Take a look at any dense urban environment: * Concrete and asphalt EVERYWHERE. Ask yourself about the carbon cost of all that concrete - which, in the northeast, requires constant repair. * Street lighting - I mean, you can see dense, urban areas from freaking space - think about all the energy that takes. Is that environmentally friendly and efficient? * Heat islands - Dense, urban areas concentrate so much heat they literally change local weather. * I've got an entire ecosystem of nature right in my back yard. Trees, wildflowers, grass, an array of wildlife, even a small garden growing local food (that the deer and groundhogs are determined to eat). What do dense, urban environments have? A practical monoculture of pigeons and rats?
    - xracy 4y ago
      You are more disruptive to that environment in your back yard than you would be if you moved to a city. That's exactly the problem. Any asphalt and concrete you add is sustaining 1 person. Any asphalt and concrete in an urban place is sustaining 1000s of people. You burn more fossil fuels in the winter to stay warm. You burn more fossil fuels to provide 1 source of light that only you use. The multiplier you're missing is the number of people we service with the things we're doing in an urban environment.
      - ipaddr 4y ago
        Why do you assume parent burns more fossil fuels? Having a 1,000s crammed into small spaces is China and that populatin density caused covid, sars, etc to spread. It's not health physically or for your psychology to live in an endless noise, light polluting environment.
        nayuki 4y ago
- throw0101c 4y ago
  > How is having some open space worse for the environment than being tightly packed? All that open space means things are farther apart and you have to expend more energy to get from Point A to Point B. Less density means more joules per capita for transportation: * https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/environmental-footprint-of-transportation/urban-density-energy-consumption/ https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/environment... Does it take more energy to drive 5 minutes to the store to pick up some milk and eggs, or to walk (or cycle) 5 minutes to the store? * https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/26/14388942/building-energy-use-density https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/26/14388942/bu...
- xracy 4y ago
  I live in a 1600 sqft house on a 5600 sqft lot. If everyone in the US lived in that area, we would take up ~51,423,324 acres (assuming population of 400 million). (~2.7% of the Continental US) If instead, every person took up 800 sqft in an apartment building, and assuming absolutely no vertical building, we would take up ~1/7th of that space (7,346,189 acres, 0.38% of the Continental US). That would free up ~44 Million acres of open space. Every level up you build, you get to increase the amount of open space by A further 6/7ths of the previous value. Now, Admittedly, this is back-of-the-envelope math that doesn't work for all scenarios (farms and whatnot are a separate thing). But pretending that suburbanism is better for "open space" is a load of BS. Urbanism provides more open space.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    What's wrong with using 2.7% for housing? That seems low compared to many countries. Isn't that the American dream?
    - cycomanic 4y ago
      As the article established you then need to take up a similar amount of space for parking, then add the roads so suddenly you're at 10%. I thought you want open spaces?
      - ipaddr 4y ago
        I want less density which makes neighbourhoods have more open spaces. Stacking everyone together in a small postal stamp area creates more overall land that may be open but it creates less open areas where people live.
        goosedragons 4y ago
        I dunno about you but I'd rather have one or two parks in an area than a sea of parking lots.
        4y ago
DangitBobby 4y ago
I like my suburb :)
- jen20 4y ago
  I'd be a lot more amenable to suburbs if they weren't used to try to enforce puritanical ideals - it's usually impossible to walk to a bar from one (much less to a choice of bars). Some people fix that problem by driving drunk (the stats aren't pretty), but I fix it by living somewhere where there are bars within walking distance, and will not countenance the idea of living in a suburb even if it would cost me 3x less for the same space.
  - lotsoweiners 4y ago
    I live in about the most suburban area imaginable and I could walk to 3 bars in under a mile and probably 3 more in 1 1/2.
    - jen20 4y ago
      Where is this - sounds perhaps ok!
LooseMarmoset 4y ago
The words "vibrant, dense neighborhoods" might mean "high crime, low privacy, and high noise" to people who prefer living elsewhere. Lots of people write glowingly about the "gritty, vibrant" streets of 1970s New York City too. Places like that helped spur the move to the suburbs - ask yourself why.
- noelherrick 4y ago
  Pretty sure that was just racism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight#United_States

dminvs 4y ago

It's possible to create parking space that isn't surface lots

goosedragons 4y ago

Because it's a terrible, unsustainable way to do society? Should we be dumping our trash on the streets too? I mean who cares?

richwater 4y ago
Humans shouldn't be living in shoeboxes stacked 40 floors high. It's disgusting.
- barbazoo 4y ago
  > Humans shouldn't be living in shoeboxes stacked 40 floors high. It's disgusting. Strawman. No one said anything about 40 floor high shoeboxes.
- com2kid 4y ago
  The medium density townhome I lived in had more green space accessible to me than the single family home I'm in now. Turns out 2 large yards are plenty for even 100 families, and lawn care is super affordable when split 100 ways!
  - lotsoweiners 4y ago
    That sounds terrible. I have a yard with a nice block wall and privacy hedges growing over the top. I have a pool, spa, 100s of plants in my garden, every type of bbq contraption you can think of, a large tv and other games for lounging and best of all, I decide who besides my family can be there. I don’t have random teenagers, homeless people, or quincenaras with mariachi bands in my backyard.
    - com2kid 4y ago
      I'm talking about medium density urban housing, preferably on mass transit lines and in walkable neighborhoods. My car gets under 100 miles of use a week. Excluding commuting to work, during the summer months I literally do not have to drive if I don't want to. Within walking distance of me there is a public library, 2 bakeries, 3 grocery stores, a public pool, a wading pools, 2 very large parks, 1 of which has equipped with grills, and 1 smaller neighborhood park. If I want to ride a bike, and extend my range out to all of 3 miles, then that list gets absurdly long. I don't even live in a dense part of Seattle, I just happen to live in the city proper.

__derek__ 4y ago

> my suburban town 25 miles away from a major city’s downtown The article is explicitly about city centers, not suburbs let alone outer ones.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

throw0101c 4y ago

> Who cares? People who want fiscally responsible government? "The Many Costs of Too Much Parking": * https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/11/20/the-many-costs-of-too-much-parking https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/11/20/the-many-cost... And that's not even getting into high(er) density areas subsidizing low(er) density areas: * https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-city-has-no-money https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason... * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI * https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-public-more-than-twice-as-much-as-compact-development/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-publ... * https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/16/when-apartment-dwellers-subsidize-suburban-homeowners https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/16/when-apartment... Want to live in low(er) density areas? Go ahead: but stop externalizing the costs onto others.

pookah 4y ago
> People who want fiscally responsible government? The Washington D.C metro is a multi-billion dollar money pit from hell that's mismanaged and filled with graft, death and delays. California built a 1 billion dollar bus station that nearly collapsed on itself. In the US, some of the most fiscally un-responsible transportation is public government run transportation.
- throw0101c 4y ago
  > […] mismanaged and filled with graft, death and delays. So no different than highway construction then? The seventh annual report of Highway Boondoggles: * https://frontiergroup.org/resources/highway-boondoggles/ https://frontiergroup.org/resources/highway-boondoggles/ And let's not forget that it's been empirically measured for decades that building more roads/highways doesn't decrease congestion: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand And that car-oriented 'improvements' makes things worse for drivers and worse for those for those taking public transit (often due to not being able to afford a car): > It is a paradox in that improvements in the road network will not reduce traffic congestion. Improvements in the road network can make congestion worse if the improvements make public transport more inconvenient or if they shift investment, causing disinvestment in the public transport system. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs–Thomson_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs–Thomson_paradox And that improving things for non-car users can actually make things better for drivers: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k * https://fortune.com/2015/09/30/best-country-drive-waze/ https://fortune.com/2015/09/30/best-country-drive-waze/ * https://archive.ph/S4FKM https://archive.ph/S4FKM In no instantiation of the multiverse does the data show that focusing on car-centric development and private automobile transportation is more efficient, from a fiscal or energy point of view, or better for individuals' health and things like climate change. Certainly roads are useful for commerce and trade, but personal transportation? Not so much.

notacoward 4y ago

> If Americans want room to drive and get places and park then let them. You do realize that much of that parking exists because of mandates and subsidies, right? If Americans want something else then let them. Does your interest in letting people make their own choices extend to other people's choices as well as your own?

QIYGT 4y ago

> If Americans want room to drive and get places and park A whole lot of Americans don't want that. You can tell by how much more expensive it is to live in walkable city centers than in suburbs.

kortilla 4y ago
You’re not adjusting for per-capita. The supply is much smaller for walkable city centers so a much smaller population can support the higher cost.