7 ms·

Most American urban areas are dominated by suburbs where it’s not practical to walk everywhere and public transit is very limited. So a car is necessary and oft

Most American urban areas are dominated by suburbs where it’s not practical to walk everywhere and public transit is very limited. So a car is necessary and often a car per working adult.

9rx 1y ago
Yes, but why would anyone want to live on what is effectively a farm, but without the benefit of separation from other people or land (read: income) that a farm offers? That completely defies the whole reason for the density. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I question why people are doing it.
- acuozzo 1y ago
  FWIW, I grew up in Brooklyn, NY. I know about both urban and suburban living. I now live in Columbia, MD: a suburb from the late '60s planned with high ideals. My three children each have their own room. They can ride their bicycles on our sleepy street without having to constantly worry about reckless drivers. They can explore the walking trails and wooded areas our community maintains. They can play baseball in one of the nearby fields without having to worry about breaking a car window in doing so. My wife has a large crafting area. I have an office. We have a home theater. We have a workshop in our garage. We have a large sunroom which opens to a large deck suitable for entertaining many friends at once. Getting even a fraction of what I described above in a city would cost a fortune.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    The benefits of living in the country are obvious. And since the land provides income itself, the extra cost of transportation one has to assume to live in the country is well offset anyway. Its the weird middle ground that has all of the downsides of the country and all of the downsides of the city all packed into one that we're talking about.
    - acuozzo 1y ago
      > And since the land provides income itself Hardly. Agriculture is hard work and not at all profitable unless the operation is at scale.
      - 9rx 1y ago
        > Agriculture is hard work and not at all profitable unless the operation is at scale. You seem a bit confused. While that is more or less true for the farmer, it is that way because the landlord usually takes most of the profit. As is to be expected. They hold all the cards. You can't farm without land. But given that in this scenario you are the landlord, not the one doing the work... The key to farm profitability is to own your own land free and clear. But, of course, unless you have a high paying job doing something else instead of farming that's really hard to pull off, so most farmers end up renting (either to a landlord directly, or renting money from a lender). That's when you need scale to make up for the vast majority of the profit going to someone else.
    - Whoppertime 1y ago
      Some people really just want a back yard with a white picket fence their kids can play in
      - 9rx 1y ago
        Sure, but outside of where that backyard is wanted to be hundreds of acres, then there is the density necessary to introduce amenities like jobs, healthcare, shopping, etc. alongside the backyard. At which point you no longer need transportation as you have everything you need right there. But what happens in the places we're talking about is that the people accept a small backyard in order to keep everything close, but also work to ensure that amenities aren't welcome, only allowing other houses to be close. So you get all the downsides of the city, having to trip over your annoying neighbours, but also the downsides of living in the country, having to waste large amounts of time driving to do anything. What do people see in these strange middle places?
        1y ago
- vel0city 1y ago
  > The whole reason for accepting being squeezed in tightly with other people That's the thing, a lot of Americans really don't like this idea of being squeezed in tightly. People really don't like having a shared wall. And it's not that people like these tightly squeezed lot lines, they'd prefer 1 acre lots. These tiny lots are all they can afford while still being somewhat acceptable to them about commutes. Which Americans seem to really just not care about commute times when comparing to tradeoffs on house size and not having shared walls. And in the end, you can only buy what the cities and towns allow to have built. Which is chosen by those who live there at the time. The cities then make single family structures a requirement, have minimum setbacks and lot sizes, have rigid separations between residential and commercial spaces, etc. So even those people who would want to own an apartment over a commercial suite in what you'd consider an urban area can't make that choice because that choice is illegal. But people act like these zoning laws just come about on their own. The thing is, these zoning laws are popular. They get put into place because that's what the people who actually vote in local elections push for. I've seen proposal after proposal in cities around me to change zoning to allow density even in limited areas get fought tooth and nail by residents. I remember a project nearby where there was a proposal to build a mixture of 2-3 unit townhouses, some single-family narrow lots, and a tiny spot of commercial for like a coffee shop on land that was currently zoned industrial. All of this connected to the bike network, a large city park and a nature preserve nearby, and good transit connection at the end of the neighborhood. The neighborhoods around fought it tooth and nail and eventually the builder walked away after trying to negotiate for a few years. Well, the land was already zoned industrial, construction broke ground months later to build warehouses. Now instead of a nice neighborhood on my bike path there's warehouses with semi-trucks rolling through all day long. Good job, NIMBYs!
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > That's the thing, a lot of Americans really don't like this idea of being squeezed in tightly. Sure, it isn't coincidence that the "American Dream" has always been portrayed the sizeable house on a large acreage out in the country surrounded by white picket fences. But we're talking about the people who are choosing to cram in beside one another, but aren't bringing the services and joy that such density normally offers to go along with it. > These tiny lots are all they can afford while still being somewhat acceptable to them about commutes. I've lived in cities and on farms and the commute times end up being about the same if you ever have to leave your immediate community that is within walking distance. You have to drive further from the farm, sure, but the highway is surprisingly efficient. Is there some reason people are more concerned about distance than time? The city offers a clear advantage when you are travelling short enough distances that you can walk. But, that brings us right back to wondering what you need costly transportation for? The two dangly things beneath you are right there! (Yes, I know, some people hazve disabilities, but the discussion isn't about them) > But people act like these zoning laws just come about on their own. Not at all. That's why we question why people are doing it. It is clearly their own choice. But why when we then hear them crying that the transportation costs are too high?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- danans 1y ago
  > Yes, but why would anyone want to live on what is effectively a farm, but without the benefit of separation from other people or land (read: income) that a farm offers? They don't want complete separation from other people. They want conveniences of the city/metropolis (access to jobs, entertainment, and education) while having a lot of space around their home for recreation & privacy. They don't want farm work (required for that income) either - it's physically and emotionally hard and margins are thin and fragile depending on the weather.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > They want conveniences of the city/metropolis (access to jobs, entertainment, and education) But not without having to travel. And once travel is in the picture, you can be to the same places just as fast from a farm as you can from another point in the city. It might be hard to appreciate if you have never lived on a farm, but once you do you'll realize that the highway is unbelievably efficient. Your point only holds for when that stuff is available within walking distance of one's home. But now we're back to not needing costly transportation, so... > They don't want farm work (required for that income) either Where do you get the idea that farm work is a necessary condition to realize an income from farm land? Most farmers (in the legal sense) don't farm their own land, they have other farmers work it through sharecropping/rental agreements.
    - danans 1y ago
      > But not without having to travel. And once travel is in the picture, you can be to the same places just as fast from a farm as you can from another point in the city. Your phrase "having to travel" is painting with a very broad brush. There are naturally huge variations in transit time depending on where you live in a metropolis, where you are going, and how you are getting there. I can walk 15 minutes to a coffee shop and grocery store, drive 20 minutes to a Walmart, and take a train 35 minutes to the office. All are very convenient and the latter two require transportation. > Where do you get the idea that farm work is a necessary condition to realize an income from farm land? Most farmers (in the legal sense) don't farm their own land, they have other farmers work it through sharecropping/rental agreements. Even if you aren't doing the hard labor, you have to want to manage that kind of business. Most people evidently prefer not to, and instead like urban jobs. The last 150 years of urbanization isn't a fluke.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  Because it's cheaper, if we're bring frank. The middle class is slowly being priced out of urban sprawls.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    It's not though, else transportation costs wouldn't be of concern. If you don't find transportation costs to be problematic in your budget, wonderful news, but that is not fitting in the topic at hand. Those with "fuck you" money live a very different life.
jjav 1y ago
> Most American urban areas are dominated by suburbs where it’s not practical to walk everywhere and public transit is very limited. Not every suburb is like that. I live in a pretty remote suburb in Silicon Valley (could be almost called rural) and I can walk to pretty much anything necessary in weekly life. My office, shopping, supermarkets, restaurants, pharmacies, hardware store, movies, library, post office, parks, some doctors. While I own cars for various hobbies and convenience, they're not stricly necessary. If I had to scale back on spending I could easily live without any cars in this suburb.

Most American urban areas are dominated by suburbs where it’s not practical to walk everywhere and public transit is very limited. So a car is necessary and often a car per working adult.

9rx 1y ago

Yes, but why would anyone want to live on what is effectively a farm, but without the benefit of separation from other people or land (read: income) that a farm offers? That completely defies the whole reason for the density. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I question why people are doing it.

acuozzo 1y ago
FWIW, I grew up in Brooklyn, NY. I know about both urban and suburban living. I now live in Columbia, MD: a suburb from the late '60s planned with high ideals. My three children each have their own room. They can ride their bicycles on our sleepy street without having to constantly worry about reckless drivers. They can explore the walking trails and wooded areas our community maintains. They can play baseball in one of the nearby fields without having to worry about breaking a car window in doing so. My wife has a large crafting area. I have an office. We have a home theater. We have a workshop in our garage. We have a large sunroom which opens to a large deck suitable for entertaining many friends at once. Getting even a fraction of what I described above in a city would cost a fortune.
- 9rx 1y ago
  The benefits of living in the country are obvious. And since the land provides income itself, the extra cost of transportation one has to assume to live in the country is well offset anyway. Its the weird middle ground that has all of the downsides of the country and all of the downsides of the city all packed into one that we're talking about.
  - acuozzo 1y ago
    > And since the land provides income itself Hardly. Agriculture is hard work and not at all profitable unless the operation is at scale.
    - 9rx 1y ago
      > Agriculture is hard work and not at all profitable unless the operation is at scale. You seem a bit confused. While that is more or less true for the farmer, it is that way because the landlord usually takes most of the profit. As is to be expected. They hold all the cards. You can't farm without land. But given that in this scenario you are the landlord, not the one doing the work... The key to farm profitability is to own your own land free and clear. But, of course, unless you have a high paying job doing something else instead of farming that's really hard to pull off, so most farmers end up renting (either to a landlord directly, or renting money from a lender). That's when you need scale to make up for the vast majority of the profit going to someone else.
  - Whoppertime 1y ago
    Some people really just want a back yard with a white picket fence their kids can play in
    - 9rx 1y ago
      Sure, but outside of where that backyard is wanted to be hundreds of acres, then there is the density necessary to introduce amenities like jobs, healthcare, shopping, etc. alongside the backyard. At which point you no longer need transportation as you have everything you need right there. But what happens in the places we're talking about is that the people accept a small backyard in order to keep everything close, but also work to ensure that amenities aren't welcome, only allowing other houses to be close. So you get all the downsides of the city, having to trip over your annoying neighbours, but also the downsides of living in the country, having to waste large amounts of time driving to do anything. What do people see in these strange middle places?
      - 1y ago
vel0city 1y ago
> The whole reason for accepting being squeezed in tightly with other people That's the thing, a lot of Americans really don't like this idea of being squeezed in tightly. People really don't like having a shared wall. And it's not that people like these tightly squeezed lot lines, they'd prefer 1 acre lots. These tiny lots are all they can afford while still being somewhat acceptable to them about commutes. Which Americans seem to really just not care about commute times when comparing to tradeoffs on house size and not having shared walls. And in the end, you can only buy what the cities and towns allow to have built. Which is chosen by those who live there at the time. The cities then make single family structures a requirement, have minimum setbacks and lot sizes, have rigid separations between residential and commercial spaces, etc. So even those people who would want to own an apartment over a commercial suite in what you'd consider an urban area can't make that choice because that choice is illegal. But people act like these zoning laws just come about on their own. The thing is, these zoning laws are popular. They get put into place because that's what the people who actually vote in local elections push for. I've seen proposal after proposal in cities around me to change zoning to allow density even in limited areas get fought tooth and nail by residents. I remember a project nearby where there was a proposal to build a mixture of 2-3 unit townhouses, some single-family narrow lots, and a tiny spot of commercial for like a coffee shop on land that was currently zoned industrial. All of this connected to the bike network, a large city park and a nature preserve nearby, and good transit connection at the end of the neighborhood. The neighborhoods around fought it tooth and nail and eventually the builder walked away after trying to negotiate for a few years. Well, the land was already zoned industrial, construction broke ground months later to build warehouses. Now instead of a nice neighborhood on my bike path there's warehouses with semi-trucks rolling through all day long. Good job, NIMBYs!
- 9rx 1y ago
  > That's the thing, a lot of Americans really don't like this idea of being squeezed in tightly. Sure, it isn't coincidence that the "American Dream" has always been portrayed the sizeable house on a large acreage out in the country surrounded by white picket fences. But we're talking about the people who are choosing to cram in beside one another, but aren't bringing the services and joy that such density normally offers to go along with it. > These tiny lots are all they can afford while still being somewhat acceptable to them about commutes. I've lived in cities and on farms and the commute times end up being about the same if you ever have to leave your immediate community that is within walking distance. You have to drive further from the farm, sure, but the highway is surprisingly efficient. Is there some reason people are more concerned about distance than time? The city offers a clear advantage when you are travelling short enough distances that you can walk. But, that brings us right back to wondering what you need costly transportation for? The two dangly things beneath you are right there! (Yes, I know, some people hazve disabilities, but the discussion isn't about them) > But people act like these zoning laws just come about on their own. Not at all. That's why we question why people are doing it. It is clearly their own choice. But why when we then hear them crying that the transportation costs are too high?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
danans 1y ago
> Yes, but why would anyone want to live on what is effectively a farm, but without the benefit of separation from other people or land (read: income) that a farm offers? They don't want complete separation from other people. They want conveniences of the city/metropolis (access to jobs, entertainment, and education) while having a lot of space around their home for recreation & privacy. They don't want farm work (required for that income) either - it's physically and emotionally hard and margins are thin and fragile depending on the weather.
- 9rx 1y ago
  > They want conveniences of the city/metropolis (access to jobs, entertainment, and education) But not without having to travel. And once travel is in the picture, you can be to the same places just as fast from a farm as you can from another point in the city. It might be hard to appreciate if you have never lived on a farm, but once you do you'll realize that the highway is unbelievably efficient. Your point only holds for when that stuff is available within walking distance of one's home. But now we're back to not needing costly transportation, so... > They don't want farm work (required for that income) either Where do you get the idea that farm work is a necessary condition to realize an income from farm land? Most farmers (in the legal sense) don't farm their own land, they have other farmers work it through sharecropping/rental agreements.
  - danans 1y ago
    > But not without having to travel. And once travel is in the picture, you can be to the same places just as fast from a farm as you can from another point in the city. Your phrase "having to travel" is painting with a very broad brush. There are naturally huge variations in transit time depending on where you live in a metropolis, where you are going, and how you are getting there. I can walk 15 minutes to a coffee shop and grocery store, drive 20 minutes to a Walmart, and take a train 35 minutes to the office. All are very convenient and the latter two require transportation. > Where do you get the idea that farm work is a necessary condition to realize an income from farm land? Most farmers (in the legal sense) don't farm their own land, they have other farmers work it through sharecropping/rental agreements. Even if you aren't doing the hard labor, you have to want to manage that kind of business. Most people evidently prefer not to, and instead like urban jobs. The last 150 years of urbanization isn't a fluke.
johnnyanmac 1y ago
Because it's cheaper, if we're bring frank. The middle class is slowly being priced out of urban sprawls.
- 9rx 1y ago
  It's not though, else transportation costs wouldn't be of concern. If you don't find transportation costs to be problematic in your budget, wonderful news, but that is not fitting in the topic at hand. Those with "fuck you" money live a very different life.

jjav 1y ago

> Most American urban areas are dominated by suburbs where it’s not practical to walk everywhere and public transit is very limited. Not every suburb is like that. I live in a pretty remote suburb in Silicon Valley (could be almost called rural) and I can walk to pretty much anything necessary in weekly life. My office, shopping, supermarkets, restaurants, pharmacies, hardware store, movies, library, post office, parks, some doctors. While I own cars for various hobbies and convenience, they're not stricly necessary. If I had to scale back on spending I could easily live without any cars in this suburb.