2 ms·

Taxis give people this freedom, but even more so. Car shares give people this freedom, but for less money. Despite these "bubbles" in metropolitan areas, they

Taxis give people this freedom, but even more so. Car shares give people this freedom, but for less money. Despite these "bubbles" in metropolitan areas, they are still ruined by ever present cars. So you want a car? Great, go live in the 100% of the country that caters to your every need, by law. But please don't get in the way of others that want to build their own paradise. It doesn't concern you and you should mind your own business.

cbeach 3y ago
If taxis and car shares gave people what they wanted, then people would sell their cars and use these alternatives. But they evidently don't, because people prefer to own cars, and that's why they own cars. Don't condescend people by pretending you know what's best for them.
- epistasis 3y ago
  If car centric suburban development gave people what they want, it would be cheaper than the very few places in the US thay allow one to survive by taxi and car share.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    It's not necessary for something for something to be cheaper in order for it to be what people want. People regularly pay more for things they prefer. Neither is it being cheaper proof one way or the other. Housing expenses are a complex system including a balance/imbalance of supply and demand. If suburbs are cheaper like-for-like, that's an indication (but not proof) that there's more supply in suburbs than demand relative to a style of living that's more expensive. Housing preferences are very much multi-dimensional, of which car vs non-car mobility is but one factor. Quality of schools, availability of jobs, need/desire for large amounts of interior or private exterior space, quiet, ease of resale, and hundreds of other factors conspire to set an individual household's willingness/preference to live in a place.
sokoloff 3y ago
So long as your view of paradise doesn’t interfere with mine, I 100% wish you the best as you try to make it. Where it does conflict, it is my business and I have the same right to engage in the discussion as you do.

cbeach 3y ago

If taxis and car shares gave people what they wanted, then people would sell their cars and use these alternatives. But they evidently don't, because people prefer to own cars, and that's why they own cars. Don't condescend people by pretending you know what's best for them.

epistasis 3y ago
If car centric suburban development gave people what they want, it would be cheaper than the very few places in the US thay allow one to survive by taxi and car share.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  It's not necessary for something for something to be cheaper in order for it to be what people want. People regularly pay more for things they prefer. Neither is it being cheaper proof one way or the other. Housing expenses are a complex system including a balance/imbalance of supply and demand. If suburbs are cheaper like-for-like, that's an indication (but not proof) that there's more supply in suburbs than demand relative to a style of living that's more expensive. Housing preferences are very much multi-dimensional, of which car vs non-car mobility is but one factor. Quality of schools, availability of jobs, need/desire for large amounts of interior or private exterior space, quiet, ease of resale, and hundreds of other factors conspire to set an individual household's willingness/preference to live in a place.

sokoloff 3y ago

So long as your view of paradise doesn’t interfere with mine, I 100% wish you the best as you try to make it. Where it does conflict, it is my business and I have the same right to engage in the discussion as you do.