5 ms·

> I say this as someone who at 40 years old has never learned to drive and who has walked/bicycled/taken the bus virtually everywhere I’ve needed to go. I say

> I say this as someone who at 40 years old has never learned to drive and who has walked/bicycled/taken the bus virtually everywhere I’ve needed to go. I say this with no mockery or disrespect, just description . . . you are not normal. I mean in a statistical sense. Not only are you part of (maybe the last) generation who salivated over the thought of getting a driver's license at 16 and getting away from Mom and Dad, for the vast majority of Americans, this is a totally unrealistic ask for day-to-day life. Either because of urban design or else living somewhere rural enough where it's infeasible. Urban solutions do not always work across a country as vast, huge, and diverse as the US.

bluGill 3y ago
Most people in the US live in an urban area, where urban solutions work. Only a small minority live in a rural area, though many living in suburbs like to pretend they are in a rural area.
- snovymgodym 3y ago
  I agree that the "US is a rural country" thing isn't true, but the way most US cities are built make walking either very inconvenient or outright dangerous. Posting this channel in this sort of thread is basically a meme, but this take on the topic is pretty good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM
- rufus_foreman 3y ago
  >> Most people in the US live in an urban area, where urban solutions work The word "urban" in the US means different things to different people and in different contexts. For the US census bureau, you can find their up-to-date list of US urban areas at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural.html https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/g..., and it includes areas such as the New York City metro area, at a population of 19,426,449, and Munds Park, Arizona, at a population of 773, and 2,643 other urban areas in between. By that definition of urban, most people in the US live in an urban area, but that does not mean that the same solutions work for all people in the US living in urban areas. Population densities of 600 people per square mile across a small area require different solutions than population densities of 6,000 people per square mile across a large area. The wall map version of the list of census bureau urban areas is at https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/DC2020/UA20/UA_2020_WallMap.pdf https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/DC2020/UA20/UA_2020_WallMap....
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Those small towns don't add up to much population. Most Americans live in an urban area of more than 100,000 people.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > many living in suburbs like to pretend they are in a rural area Suburbs are not rural, but they're not urban either. The population density in most suburbs is too low to support the kind of walk-everywhere infrastructure that a true high density urban area can (and should) provide. The real issue is that many people fail to realize that there is no problem with that. Having different areas for people to live with vastly different population densities, and different solutions for how people get around, is a feature, not a bug. People have very different preferences, and urban, suburban, and rural areas exist so that people's very different preferences for how they want to live can all be accommodated.
  - danny_codes 3y ago
    https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/14/americas-growth-ponzi-scheme-md2020 https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/14/americas-growt... There is a huge problem with that. It turns out that offering urban-level services at suburban density isn't sustainable. It turns out urban areas are subsidizing suburbs quite extensively. Now, if suburbanite were willing to pay their own way, perhaps we could discuss that. But another issue is that car-dependent suburbanites demand access to urban areas. For example, people living in Palo Alto want vehicle access to San Francisco. This degrades the city significantly, far outweighing any benefit from having suburban influx. Now, non-car-dependent suburbs do seem to work. Street-car suburbs, for example, seem to work reasonably well. They seem to be more dense than car-hell suburbs, but not urban like a city. So I think there is a way forward for people wanting suburban life.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > It turns out that offering urban-level services at suburban density isn't sustainable. What do you mean by "urban-level services"? If you mean urban-style mass transit, then yes, I agree--and I don't want such services in the suburbs. If I'm going to live in the suburbs, I'm going to own a car and that's how I'm going to expect to get around in the suburbs. If I wanted to live in a place where I could walk or use mass transit to get around for all of my daily activities, I'd live in the city, not the suburbs. > It turns out urban areas are subsidizing suburbs quite extensively. No, it turns out that politicians and ideologues who think everybody should live a certain way, are trying to impose that way of living in areas where it makes no sense, and using our tax money to do it. That's not a "subsidy", it's just incompetent leadership. Living in the suburbs, I get zero value from all the public expenditure on mass transit in areas which are too low density for it to make sense. So I would be fine with all those expenditures just stopping altogether. In fact, such expenditures can have negative value to the very people they are supposed to be helping. In one suburb I lived in, I could drive for about 15 minutes to a commuter parking area and catch a bus that took a half hour to get to a stop within walking distance of my workplace. Then the urban planners decided that it would make more sense to spend public money to extend the subway out to that area and outlaw the bus--meaning that from the same commuter parking area, I would now have an hour's trip to the same stop within walking distance of my workplace, during which I would have to change trains, at a higher per-trip cost than the bus was. Which meant it no longer made sense for me to take mass transit to work. > car-dependent suburbanites demand access to urban areas What kind of access? I'm fine with using, say, a train to go into the city if I need to do that. Or parking somewhere on the outskirts of the city and using mass transit to get in further. > non-car-dependent suburbs do seem to work. Again, I think this depends on what you call a "suburb". To me, if you're living in an area that has a high enough population density to make street-cars, for example, workable, you're living in a city, not a suburb. If I want more space than such a place can provide me, I'm going to live in a less dense area where mass transit is not workable, and as above, I'm going to own a car.
jrockway 3y ago
As someone else who is not normal, I have to say I'm a little tired of having my taxes subsidize the roads and sewers for someone who lives in the middle of nowhere and commutes 40 miles each way by car. "But my kids NEED a backyard!" Fair enough, but afford it on your own without a handout from the government.
- psunavy03 3y ago
  Too bad. You got outvoted in a democracy. Because most people do not hold this view.
  - danny_codes 3y ago
    Tyranny of the majority eh. Also this isn't accurate. Car-dependency in urban environments was fought by the majority of people who lived there. In the beginning, cars were toys for the rich, and they (the rich) pushed for car-friendly design. Since they had influence as elites, they were able to crush the protesting masses and destroy the pre-existing urban fabric. Then the feds misunderstood the German highway system and thought you were supposed to highway through cities, instead of between them. At this point, the momentum seems to have carried itself forward, spawning the urban design disaster in most US cities. So I would say it's more that some groups of wealthy industrialists managed to coop urban planning at a critical time, and propaganda their way through the opposition to fuck over the urban masses. They did make a lot of money though, some some would argue it was worth it.
  - TulliusCicero 3y ago
    No, most people don't even realize that urban areas tend to subsidize less dense areas. Usually when they're initially presented with this info, they immediately go into an obvious denial mode where they try to find some logic to explain why it isn't true.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- goatlover 3y ago
rewmie 3y ago
> (...) salivated over the thought of getting a driver's license at 16 and getting away from Mom and Dad (...) I'm afraid this mindset needs context. If you find yourself living in a place where everything is located tens of km away, and short drives are assessed in how many hours you spend in a car, and this is further compounded by the utter lack of a public transportation infrastructure, then gaining access to a car is a basic necessary condition for autonomy. Contrast this with some European urban centers such as the Netherlands' Randstad, where a two hour train ride from your doorstep can get you anywhere everywhere, and can actually be an international trip.
pharmakom 3y ago
> Urban solutions do not always work across a country as vast, huge, and diverse as the US. US is a huge country, but people aren’t travelling across it on a regular basis.
- justajot 3y ago
  Yes, and the highway system was originally intended as defense infrastructure to more easily move equipment across the country. A great idea, but a design that was not originally intended to plow right through cities. This has been a big contributor to the mess that we are in when it comes to urban / suburban design and the extreme lack of walkability.
  - standyro 3y ago
    Not true. They were definitely intended to plow right through cities. That’s why they built highways/freeways right through urban cores, or planned entire metro regions around them.
    - fnimick 3y ago
      Specifically, right through minority neighborhoods in cities. You can't ignore the explicitly racist history of urban "renewal" when discussing freeway planning.
evandale 3y ago
You really don't need a car. Bikes are awesome. You can ride them with backpacks. Friends have trucks. Money pays for delivery. Source: a normal 38 year old that never had a license
- psunavy03 3y ago
  [flagged]
- goatlover 3y ago
  You're not representative of everyone else, though
danny_codes 3y ago
America being large is irrelevant. China is just as large and you don't see them struggling to figure out how to walk places. The fact is most of the US is practically empty. Connect the major urban hubs with rail and remove the cars (from urban centers) and we'll have fixed this.
paulcole 3y ago
> for the vast majority of Americans, this is a totally unrealistic ask for day-to-day life. Either because of urban design or else living somewhere rural enough where it's infeasible. They can convince themselves it’s infeasible, but it is very feasible. It’s just a matter of wanting it. I wanted it enough to make it work. They don’t. That’s 100% fine — I lie to myself about plenty of stuff to get through my day. Everybody does.
- psunavy03 3y ago
  [flagged]

bluGill 3y ago

Most people in the US live in an urban area, where urban solutions work. Only a small minority live in a rural area, though many living in suburbs like to pretend they are in a rural area.

snovymgodym 3y ago
I agree that the "US is a rural country" thing isn't true, but the way most US cities are built make walking either very inconvenient or outright dangerous. Posting this channel in this sort of thread is basically a meme, but this take on the topic is pretty good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM
rufus_foreman 3y ago
>> Most people in the US live in an urban area, where urban solutions work The word "urban" in the US means different things to different people and in different contexts. For the US census bureau, you can find their up-to-date list of US urban areas at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural.html https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/g..., and it includes areas such as the New York City metro area, at a population of 19,426,449, and Munds Park, Arizona, at a population of 773, and 2,643 other urban areas in between. By that definition of urban, most people in the US live in an urban area, but that does not mean that the same solutions work for all people in the US living in urban areas. Population densities of 600 people per square mile across a small area require different solutions than population densities of 6,000 people per square mile across a large area. The wall map version of the list of census bureau urban areas is at https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/DC2020/UA20/UA_2020_WallMap.pdf https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/DC2020/UA20/UA_2020_WallMap....
- bluGill 3y ago
  Those small towns don't add up to much population. Most Americans live in an urban area of more than 100,000 people.
pdonis 3y ago
> many living in suburbs like to pretend they are in a rural area Suburbs are not rural, but they're not urban either. The population density in most suburbs is too low to support the kind of walk-everywhere infrastructure that a true high density urban area can (and should) provide. The real issue is that many people fail to realize that there is no problem with that. Having different areas for people to live with vastly different population densities, and different solutions for how people get around, is a feature, not a bug. People have very different preferences, and urban, suburban, and rural areas exist so that people's very different preferences for how they want to live can all be accommodated.
- danny_codes 3y ago
  https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/14/americas-growth-ponzi-scheme-md2020 https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/14/americas-growt... There is a huge problem with that. It turns out that offering urban-level services at suburban density isn't sustainable. It turns out urban areas are subsidizing suburbs quite extensively. Now, if suburbanite were willing to pay their own way, perhaps we could discuss that. But another issue is that car-dependent suburbanites demand access to urban areas. For example, people living in Palo Alto want vehicle access to San Francisco. This degrades the city significantly, far outweighing any benefit from having suburban influx. Now, non-car-dependent suburbs do seem to work. Street-car suburbs, for example, seem to work reasonably well. They seem to be more dense than car-hell suburbs, but not urban like a city. So I think there is a way forward for people wanting suburban life.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > It turns out that offering urban-level services at suburban density isn't sustainable. What do you mean by "urban-level services"? If you mean urban-style mass transit, then yes, I agree--and I don't want such services in the suburbs. If I'm going to live in the suburbs, I'm going to own a car and that's how I'm going to expect to get around in the suburbs. If I wanted to live in a place where I could walk or use mass transit to get around for all of my daily activities, I'd live in the city, not the suburbs. > It turns out urban areas are subsidizing suburbs quite extensively. No, it turns out that politicians and ideologues who think everybody should live a certain way, are trying to impose that way of living in areas where it makes no sense, and using our tax money to do it. That's not a "subsidy", it's just incompetent leadership. Living in the suburbs, I get zero value from all the public expenditure on mass transit in areas which are too low density for it to make sense. So I would be fine with all those expenditures just stopping altogether. In fact, such expenditures can have negative value to the very people they are supposed to be helping. In one suburb I lived in, I could drive for about 15 minutes to a commuter parking area and catch a bus that took a half hour to get to a stop within walking distance of my workplace. Then the urban planners decided that it would make more sense to spend public money to extend the subway out to that area and outlaw the bus--meaning that from the same commuter parking area, I would now have an hour's trip to the same stop within walking distance of my workplace, during which I would have to change trains, at a higher per-trip cost than the bus was. Which meant it no longer made sense for me to take mass transit to work. > car-dependent suburbanites demand access to urban areas What kind of access? I'm fine with using, say, a train to go into the city if I need to do that. Or parking somewhere on the outskirts of the city and using mass transit to get in further. > non-car-dependent suburbs do seem to work. Again, I think this depends on what you call a "suburb". To me, if you're living in an area that has a high enough population density to make street-cars, for example, workable, you're living in a city, not a suburb. If I want more space than such a place can provide me, I'm going to live in a less dense area where mass transit is not workable, and as above, I'm going to own a car.

jrockway 3y ago

As someone else who is not normal, I have to say I'm a little tired of having my taxes subsidize the roads and sewers for someone who lives in the middle of nowhere and commutes 40 miles each way by car. "But my kids NEED a backyard!" Fair enough, but afford it on your own without a handout from the government.

psunavy03 3y ago
Too bad. You got outvoted in a democracy. Because most people do not hold this view.
- danny_codes 3y ago
  Tyranny of the majority eh. Also this isn't accurate. Car-dependency in urban environments was fought by the majority of people who lived there. In the beginning, cars were toys for the rich, and they (the rich) pushed for car-friendly design. Since they had influence as elites, they were able to crush the protesting masses and destroy the pre-existing urban fabric. Then the feds misunderstood the German highway system and thought you were supposed to highway through cities, instead of between them. At this point, the momentum seems to have carried itself forward, spawning the urban design disaster in most US cities. So I would say it's more that some groups of wealthy industrialists managed to coop urban planning at a critical time, and propaganda their way through the opposition to fuck over the urban masses. They did make a lot of money though, some some would argue it was worth it.
- TulliusCicero 3y ago
  No, most people don't even realize that urban areas tend to subsidize less dense areas. Usually when they're initially presented with this info, they immediately go into an obvious denial mode where they try to find some logic to explain why it isn't true.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
goatlover 3y ago

rewmie 3y ago

> (...) salivated over the thought of getting a driver's license at 16 and getting away from Mom and Dad (...) I'm afraid this mindset needs context. If you find yourself living in a place where everything is located tens of km away, and short drives are assessed in how many hours you spend in a car, and this is further compounded by the utter lack of a public transportation infrastructure, then gaining access to a car is a basic necessary condition for autonomy. Contrast this with some European urban centers such as the Netherlands' Randstad, where a two hour train ride from your doorstep can get you anywhere everywhere, and can actually be an international trip.

pharmakom 3y ago

> Urban solutions do not always work across a country as vast, huge, and diverse as the US. US is a huge country, but people aren’t travelling across it on a regular basis.

justajot 3y ago
Yes, and the highway system was originally intended as defense infrastructure to more easily move equipment across the country. A great idea, but a design that was not originally intended to plow right through cities. This has been a big contributor to the mess that we are in when it comes to urban / suburban design and the extreme lack of walkability.
- standyro 3y ago
  Not true. They were definitely intended to plow right through cities. That’s why they built highways/freeways right through urban cores, or planned entire metro regions around them.
  - fnimick 3y ago
    Specifically, right through minority neighborhoods in cities. You can't ignore the explicitly racist history of urban "renewal" when discussing freeway planning.

evandale 3y ago

You really don't need a car. Bikes are awesome. You can ride them with backpacks. Friends have trucks. Money pays for delivery. Source: a normal 38 year old that never had a license

psunavy03 3y ago
[flagged]
goatlover 3y ago
You're not representative of everyone else, though

danny_codes 3y ago

America being large is irrelevant. China is just as large and you don't see them struggling to figure out how to walk places. The fact is most of the US is practically empty. Connect the major urban hubs with rail and remove the cars (from urban centers) and we'll have fixed this.

paulcole 3y ago

> for the vast majority of Americans, this is a totally unrealistic ask for day-to-day life. Either because of urban design or else living somewhere rural enough where it's infeasible. They can convince themselves it’s infeasible, but it is very feasible. It’s just a matter of wanting it. I wanted it enough to make it work. They don’t. That’s 100% fine — I lie to myself about plenty of stuff to get through my day. Everybody does.

psunavy03 3y ago
[flagged]