4 ms·

Do they? Or is it the only game in town because of decisions made sixty years ago and housing pressures and cost structures mean that if you want to live at an

Do they? Or is it the only game in town because of decisions made sixty years ago and housing pressures and cost structures mean that if you want to live at an affordable level in that area a car is functionally required? (Hint: in almost all of America, it's this one.)

lotsoweiners 3y ago
I live where I live specifically because I dont want density or a bunch of public transport options. Financially I could afford to move 25 miles and be in areas that are more walkable with public transportation but the downsides (crime, homeless, traffic, crowds, smaller living spaces, privacy concerns) outweigh the benefits for me and my family.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
vel0city 3y ago
Those decision made 60 years ago was buying cars and moving out of the dense cities into car-oriented housing. Then they continued to move more and more into car oriented housing and voting for more car oriented housing. It's not like suburbs just appeared one day against everyone's wishes.
- ajuc 3y ago
  In Netherlands they did the exact same thing and then reverted to walkable cities. It's not the only choice and it has lots of bad consequences. And I'd argue most citizens were never asked about it, it was decided for them by zoning laws and planning commitees in both countries.
  - vel0city 3y ago
    I'm not suggesting it's the only choice, or it being a good choice, or anything like that. I'm just pushing back against the narrative that people didn't freely choose this. Popularly elected leaders chose the city planning. Local elections and people leaving the cities by choice created the suburbs. If most the people in the cities wanted the change it would happen. And hey look, you're doing it too. "Zoning laws" just magically happened with zero input and somehow radically changed the world without anyone noticing. How did the zoning laws get there? Popularly elected people chosen by the people who live there who made it happen year over year over year. If people didn't like the zoning, they'd vote to change it. That's how it happened in the Netherlands, people elected people who wanted the change.
    - ajuc 3y ago
      This is a good video about the history behind idiotic American zoning laws and parking minimums. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUNXFHpUhu8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUNXFHpUhu8 It was a mess of utopian central planning, good intentions, private capture, bad science, corruption, bad incentives, and never looking back and fixing it. At very few points did people had a say in how this turned out.
      - vel0city 3y ago
        I've seen the video. I'm well aware. > At very few points did people had a say in how this turned out. This is an incorrect take from this though. Those parking minimums coud be changed tomorrow. They could have been changed any time these last 60 years. It doesn't take a federal constitutional amendment. It doesn't take 60 votes in the US senate. Those parking minimums and car centric developments continue to be policy because people continue choosing it. Local elections don't take that many votes to swing! Lots of positions run unopposed every year! They didn't change because the people there didn't care to change it. Acting like zoning laws are something people can't change and that people don't want is to ignore reality. Zoning laws exist because people choose to have them! I'm all for cities removing parking minimums. They're often really bad policy. I agree with a lot of things pushed by NotJustBikes and StrongTowns and what not. But acting like nobody wants these policies just isn't reality. Go see the town halls full of people complaing against density, complaining against bike lanes, complaining against transit, complaining against traffic soothing and then tell me nobody wants zoning laws.
        eropple 3y ago
        > Those parking minimums and car centric developments continue to be policy because people continue choosing it This is unambiguously true, but at the same time it's not an answer. There's a deeper problem here that I don't think you can dismiss with "well, people vote for it". Yeah. And people voted for redlining, and people voted for school segregation. It is very hard not to see (growing up in such places and visiting occasionally still) a deep-seated kind of racism driving a whole lot of that separation, much more than "I want cars". You see elsewhere in the thread the predictable dog-whistles of "crime"--but rural crime is prevalent, too! It's just crime perpetuated by...well...people who look like those worried about crime. You see right-wing influencers on YouTube getting strapped to go to cities or even to Subway restaurants and it's not because of actual incidents--one's more likely to commit suicide with a firearm than to have to "defend oneself". It's just saying the quiet part loud. At some point we're going to need a societal unfucking, and this is symptomatic (but not causative) of why we need it.

lotsoweiners 3y ago

I live where I live specifically because I dont want density or a bunch of public transport options. Financially I could afford to move 25 miles and be in areas that are more walkable with public transportation but the downsides (crime, homeless, traffic, crowds, smaller living spaces, privacy concerns) outweigh the benefits for me and my family.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

vel0city 3y ago

Those decision made 60 years ago was buying cars and moving out of the dense cities into car-oriented housing. Then they continued to move more and more into car oriented housing and voting for more car oriented housing. It's not like suburbs just appeared one day against everyone's wishes.

ajuc 3y ago
In Netherlands they did the exact same thing and then reverted to walkable cities. It's not the only choice and it has lots of bad consequences. And I'd argue most citizens were never asked about it, it was decided for them by zoning laws and planning commitees in both countries.
- vel0city 3y ago
  I'm not suggesting it's the only choice, or it being a good choice, or anything like that. I'm just pushing back against the narrative that people didn't freely choose this. Popularly elected leaders chose the city planning. Local elections and people leaving the cities by choice created the suburbs. If most the people in the cities wanted the change it would happen. And hey look, you're doing it too. "Zoning laws" just magically happened with zero input and somehow radically changed the world without anyone noticing. How did the zoning laws get there? Popularly elected people chosen by the people who live there who made it happen year over year over year. If people didn't like the zoning, they'd vote to change it. That's how it happened in the Netherlands, people elected people who wanted the change.
  - ajuc 3y ago
    This is a good video about the history behind idiotic American zoning laws and parking minimums. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUNXFHpUhu8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUNXFHpUhu8 It was a mess of utopian central planning, good intentions, private capture, bad science, corruption, bad incentives, and never looking back and fixing it. At very few points did people had a say in how this turned out.
    - vel0city 3y ago
      I've seen the video. I'm well aware. > At very few points did people had a say in how this turned out. This is an incorrect take from this though. Those parking minimums coud be changed tomorrow. They could have been changed any time these last 60 years. It doesn't take a federal constitutional amendment. It doesn't take 60 votes in the US senate. Those parking minimums and car centric developments continue to be policy because people continue choosing it. Local elections don't take that many votes to swing! Lots of positions run unopposed every year! They didn't change because the people there didn't care to change it. Acting like zoning laws are something people can't change and that people don't want is to ignore reality. Zoning laws exist because people choose to have them! I'm all for cities removing parking minimums. They're often really bad policy. I agree with a lot of things pushed by NotJustBikes and StrongTowns and what not. But acting like nobody wants these policies just isn't reality. Go see the town halls full of people complaing against density, complaining against bike lanes, complaining against transit, complaining against traffic soothing and then tell me nobody wants zoning laws.
      - eropple 3y ago
        > Those parking minimums and car centric developments continue to be policy because people continue choosing it This is unambiguously true, but at the same time it's not an answer. There's a deeper problem here that I don't think you can dismiss with "well, people vote for it". Yeah. And people voted for redlining, and people voted for school segregation. It is very hard not to see (growing up in such places and visiting occasionally still) a deep-seated kind of racism driving a whole lot of that separation, much more than "I want cars". You see elsewhere in the thread the predictable dog-whistles of "crime"--but rural crime is prevalent, too! It's just crime perpetuated by...well...people who look like those worried about crime. You see right-wing influencers on YouTube getting strapped to go to cities or even to Subway restaurants and it's not because of actual incidents--one's more likely to commit suicide with a firearm than to have to "defend oneself". It's just saying the quiet part loud. At some point we're going to need a societal unfucking, and this is symptomatic (but not causative) of why we need it.