5 ms·

Parking is impactful but is ultimately shaped by human preferences that are revealed by the choices people make. For example, you can live in NYC car-free, but

Parking is impactful but is ultimately shaped by human preferences that are revealed by the choices people make. For example, you can live in NYC car-free, but many (most?) people move out to the burbs once they have a family, partially because lower density + car enables better family life. What works well for a single-and-dating young professional, doesn't work as well for a dad. If ample parking makes family life easier, that is probably a pretty good tradeoff.

sime2009 3y ago
How many other options are available to people in between the suburbs and NYC style high density cities?
digging 3y ago
> Parking is impactful but is ultimately shaped by human preferences that are revealed by the choices people make. This is completely untrue. It is shaped by the profit-seeking behaviors of car manufacturers. In general, when you think a phenomenon is due to "the choices people make" (especially in the US), it probably is not.
- jjav 3y ago
  > > Parking is impactful but is ultimately shaped by human preferences that are revealed by the choices people make. > This is completely untrue. It is shaped by the profit-seeking behaviors of car manufacturers. That's a wild claim, how would you substantiate it? It's partially true, of course, manufacturers (or anything) lobby for their self-interest. But your claim is that it is completely untrue that people have preferences that shape what they need. A lot of people much prefer living in a large space with land than squeezed into a high-rise.
  - digging 3y ago
    > A lot of people much prefer living in a large space with land than squeezed into a high-rise. But it doesn't really matter what they want, because their cities have already decided that those large lots are the only thing legally available to them on the vast majority of land and that commercial building can't be built nearby enough to walk to for the most part. There is also definitely a non-zero amount of people who only prefer that style of living because they've never experienced any other kind. Finally, I will point out that "a large space" vs "squeezed into a high rise" is a false dichotomy for two reasons. #1 is that apartments can be large, and standalone houses or duplexes can be small. #2 is that high rises and SFHs aren't the only kinds of homes that are possible. the fact that such an argument is so often made is evidence of how effective the propaganda has been, that most Americans don't even know there are other options they could actually have. (Apologies if you're not American, that's definitely an assumption because this is such a common opinion here)
    - jjav 3y ago
      > But it doesn't really matter what they want I was responding to the comment that it "is completely untrue" that there are "human preferences". Of course people have preferences. Not only is it not an edge case to have preferences, it's the norm. The idea that everyone who wants a house has been brainwashed by the car manufacturer lobby is quite an extreme position. > their cities have already decided that those large lots are the only thing legally available Where is this happening? Never seen that (but obviously I haven't lived everywhere). Here in California lots are smaller and smaller all the time, in many urban areas a large lot can't be had for any money anymore.
      - digging 3y ago
        > I was responding to the comment that it "is completely untrue" that there are "human preferences". Ok, but I never said that > Here in California lots are smaller and smaller all the time Good, that means zoning laws are changing to allow variation
- xyzelement 3y ago
  Sorry but your posts sounds like a well rehearsed cliche you pulled out rather than a response to my comment. I intentionally cited an example of someone having access to great density and transit (NYC) but making a different choice. The Toyota motor corporation doesn't seem to be in the mix on my decision here. Do you have something to elaborate here? As for "especially in the US..." part, really? On simple Googling, seems like France has over 80% household rate of car ownership, and Japan has something close to 80% (two random countries I pulled) so while US is obviously higher, it doesn't seem like an obviously US phenomenon. I may be off on what you are trying to say here but in my defense you haven't actually articulated an argument.
  - digging 3y ago
    > I intentionally cited an example of someone having access to great density and transit (NYC) but making a different choice ...Did you? I read "you can live in NYC car-free, but many (most?) people move out to the burbs once they have a family", which is not that. It is a claim which ignores: 1. the fact that "many" vs "most" can be colossal - "many" could be 1%. 2. housing being cheaper in the suburbs, which is pretty important for people raising children on a budget Regarding car ownership... that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the auto industry's lobbying to criminalize pedestrianism (jaywalking is a crime invented to sell cars), to rip out existing transit infrastructure, to block the development of new transit infrastructure (this still happens today lol), to inundate and normalize the idea of car = freedom (even though it's the opposite for day-to-day use) to the public so that we forget we even used to have public transit, to lobby for zoning laws that literally outlaw any kind of city planning that makes it possible to survive without a car in almost the entire continent.

sime2009 3y ago

How many other options are available to people in between the suburbs and NYC style high density cities?

digging 3y ago

> Parking is impactful but is ultimately shaped by human preferences that are revealed by the choices people make. This is completely untrue. It is shaped by the profit-seeking behaviors of car manufacturers. In general, when you think a phenomenon is due to "the choices people make" (especially in the US), it probably is not.

jjav 3y ago
> > Parking is impactful but is ultimately shaped by human preferences that are revealed by the choices people make. > This is completely untrue. It is shaped by the profit-seeking behaviors of car manufacturers. That's a wild claim, how would you substantiate it? It's partially true, of course, manufacturers (or anything) lobby for their self-interest. But your claim is that it is completely untrue that people have preferences that shape what they need. A lot of people much prefer living in a large space with land than squeezed into a high-rise.
- digging 3y ago
  > A lot of people much prefer living in a large space with land than squeezed into a high-rise. But it doesn't really matter what they want, because their cities have already decided that those large lots are the only thing legally available to them on the vast majority of land and that commercial building can't be built nearby enough to walk to for the most part. There is also definitely a non-zero amount of people who only prefer that style of living because they've never experienced any other kind. Finally, I will point out that "a large space" vs "squeezed into a high rise" is a false dichotomy for two reasons. #1 is that apartments can be large, and standalone houses or duplexes can be small. #2 is that high rises and SFHs aren't the only kinds of homes that are possible. the fact that such an argument is so often made is evidence of how effective the propaganda has been, that most Americans don't even know there are other options they could actually have. (Apologies if you're not American, that's definitely an assumption because this is such a common opinion here)
  - jjav 3y ago
    > But it doesn't really matter what they want I was responding to the comment that it "is completely untrue" that there are "human preferences". Of course people have preferences. Not only is it not an edge case to have preferences, it's the norm. The idea that everyone who wants a house has been brainwashed by the car manufacturer lobby is quite an extreme position. > their cities have already decided that those large lots are the only thing legally available Where is this happening? Never seen that (but obviously I haven't lived everywhere). Here in California lots are smaller and smaller all the time, in many urban areas a large lot can't be had for any money anymore.
    - digging 3y ago
      > I was responding to the comment that it "is completely untrue" that there are "human preferences". Ok, but I never said that > Here in California lots are smaller and smaller all the time Good, that means zoning laws are changing to allow variation
xyzelement 3y ago
Sorry but your posts sounds like a well rehearsed cliche you pulled out rather than a response to my comment. I intentionally cited an example of someone having access to great density and transit (NYC) but making a different choice. The Toyota motor corporation doesn't seem to be in the mix on my decision here. Do you have something to elaborate here? As for "especially in the US..." part, really? On simple Googling, seems like France has over 80% household rate of car ownership, and Japan has something close to 80% (two random countries I pulled) so while US is obviously higher, it doesn't seem like an obviously US phenomenon. I may be off on what you are trying to say here but in my defense you haven't actually articulated an argument.
- digging 3y ago
  > I intentionally cited an example of someone having access to great density and transit (NYC) but making a different choice ...Did you? I read "you can live in NYC car-free, but many (most?) people move out to the burbs once they have a family", which is not that. It is a claim which ignores: 1. the fact that "many" vs "most" can be colossal - "many" could be 1%. 2. housing being cheaper in the suburbs, which is pretty important for people raising children on a budget Regarding car ownership... that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the auto industry's lobbying to criminalize pedestrianism (jaywalking is a crime invented to sell cars), to rip out existing transit infrastructure, to block the development of new transit infrastructure (this still happens today lol), to inundate and normalize the idea of car = freedom (even though it's the opposite for day-to-day use) to the public so that we forget we even used to have public transit, to lobby for zoning laws that literally outlaw any kind of city planning that makes it possible to survive without a car in almost the entire continent.