5 ms·

This is possible if you’re not picky about where you live, where you work, your career options, how crowded your local vicinity is, or how much you pay for your

This is possible if you’re not picky about where you live, where you work, your career options, how crowded your local vicinity is, or how much you pay for your residence. The more your preferences or financial constraints come into play, the more you have to give up. Most people settle in for driving because it allows them to pick from more job options than those that happen to be located near their house and more housing options than what happens to be near your job. This didn’t matter as much 200 years ago when most people’s job options were limited to farming or something in service of farming. It got much harder when the range of people’s jobs exploded and finding a company hiring in your specialty meant traveling some distance from home. It gets even harder when there are two earners in a household trying to find two jobs.

lucumo 4mo ago
> This is possible if you’re not picky about where you live, where you work, your career options, Yup. And even if you arent't picky. The amount of surface area you can cover scales quadratically with the distance you can commute (either by traveling longer, or by going faster). So as a first approximation, the amount of competition for your labour also goes up quadratically. Job-hopping is one of the best ways to get better jobs. And it is a LOT easier if you can commute further.
dsl 4mo ago
Here is your easy solution: Per employee tax = $0.20 * commute_miles * 2 * (commute_miles / 10)^2 * mandated_office_days_per_year * (1 + 2 * share_of_workforce_over_10_miles)^2 Tech companies can have more distributed offices and assign employees based on geography instead of teams, go back to WFH, pay employees enough to live close to their mega campuses, or pay out the ass into adding more lanes.
mayneack 4mo ago
The relative price of those cramped urban centers where this is true suggests that at least a few more people would choose this path if it were cheaper.
asdff 4mo ago
The explosion was also due to the car not only spreading low density housing out that would have been a tough sell previously, but also job sprawl to suburban and exurban greenfield. There used to be natural agglomeration to central well connected nodes before the car. Many cities enacted height limits in the early 1900s with the specific aim to spread out development that was dense enough to make serving basic infrastructure, such as water, power, transit, and cleaning the mounting horseshit off the roads, increasingly expensive and difficult. Early real estate barons would buy marginal land and develop a streetcar line that ran into the job center, and sell plots off that line now that it finally had some utility in the form of a connection to jobs. Even if you worked in something specialized back then, chances are it was close to where most other people were working. Offices were downtown. Government buildings were downtown. Hospitals were downtown. Manufacturing was downtown. Ports and railheads were downtown. All of that snowballing enjoyed by cities exploded with the car.
lwansbrough 4mo ago
This is like, a post-hoc rationalization. Most jobs, not all, can take place inside a city. If you build your cities densely, people can live and work within the city and have all their needs met without the need for a car (see: the great cities of the world) If you design economic hubs properly, businesses can be located within reach of homes without the need for cars. If you instead prioritize the need for, I don’t know, a monoculture lawn and separation from lower class people, then you’re choosing to build suburbs. Once a city has built enough suburbs, businesses become out of reach without the use of a car.
- lucumo 4mo ago
  Since I've moved to my current home, I've had jobs in about 6 different towns and cities. I think for all of them I had colleagues that cycled to work and colleagues that drove for an hour or more. All these jobs had homes and shops within walking distance. But they are not within walking distance of each other.
- rwyinuse 4mo ago
  What if I want my own garden and not monoculture lawn? What if I want my children to be able to walk in nature near their home? Neither is possible in a densely built city where there are only apartments. Then there are all the social problems, bad neighbours that become more common in densely built areas. I don't want to deal with that. Suburbs are popular because they provide a superior quality of life for many people. Of course in an ideal world everyone would be allowed to do fully remote work if possible, and people like me could move to countryside.
  - HEmanZ 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - queenkjuul 4mo ago
      They could have everything they want here in my neighborhood of Chicago: easy access to nature, room for a garden. Suburban Americans love to pretend that "cul de sac" and "Manhattan" are the only two types of place
throw0101a 4mo ago
> This is possible if you’re not picky about where you live, where you work, your career options, how crowded your local vicinity is, or how much you pay for your residence. Perhaps the problem is the lack of options for those people that want human-centric (versus car-centric) communities. Maybe if we let The Market™ decide, versus forcing low-density sprawl via zoning, more options would be available. Right now, if you look on any real estate web site, you'll probably find walkable neighbourhoods have higher prices non-walkable ones: there is demand for them, but a fixed supply since they're not being made anymore, and so they get bid up. Perhaps if there were more of them, especially around commuter rail stations, it would help.
- quantumwannabe 4mo ago
  We already tried that experiment. The result was Houston.
  - HEmanZ 4mo ago
    Houston is not a free market for housing at all. They don’t have “zoning” because they call it “land use covenants” and “parking requirements” instead, and it ends up amounting to the same thing as “zoning” in other cities. And the market doesn’t build the streets, sidewalks, or set up public transport routes. I remember visiting my friend in an 400+ unit apartment complex in Houston. When I got up in the morning I was like “hey I’m going to walk down and get coffee.” My friend said to just Uber Eats it, I was like that’s insane. So I went down to the ground floor and found out there was literaly no way to walk to the coffee shop that was 0.1 miles away less than 30 minutes because of the absolute nightmare that is Huston streets and sidewalks.
  - psd1 4mo ago
    I don't think we can learn much about pedestrianisation from Texas.
  - throw0101a 4mo ago
    The City Beautiful channel goes over the restrictions that Houston has: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaU1UH_3B5k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaU1UH_3B5k For example deed restrictions, where, when a sub-division is created, the use case of the lots can never be changed. See also "residential buffering ordinance", parking requirement ordinance, historic districts, etc.
HEmanZ 4mo ago
I am liking the term “car brained” more and more for this type of attitude. Have you ever heard of trains, busses, bikes? The options for transportation are not binary car or no car. Maybe in North America where they refuse to provide even crappy public transport in most cities it feels this way, but in the rest of the world they are smart enough to build trains and don’t have this problem.

lucumo 4mo ago

> This is possible if you’re not picky about where you live, where you work, your career options, Yup. And even if you arent't picky. The amount of surface area you can cover scales quadratically with the distance you can commute (either by traveling longer, or by going faster). So as a first approximation, the amount of competition for your labour also goes up quadratically. Job-hopping is one of the best ways to get better jobs. And it is a LOT easier if you can commute further.

dsl 4mo ago

Here is your easy solution: Per employee tax = $0.20 * commute_miles * 2 * (commute_miles / 10)^2 * mandated_office_days_per_year * (1 + 2 * share_of_workforce_over_10_miles)^2 Tech companies can have more distributed offices and assign employees based on geography instead of teams, go back to WFH, pay employees enough to live close to their mega campuses, or pay out the ass into adding more lanes.

mayneack 4mo ago

The relative price of those cramped urban centers where this is true suggests that at least a few more people would choose this path if it were cheaper.

asdff 4mo ago

The explosion was also due to the car not only spreading low density housing out that would have been a tough sell previously, but also job sprawl to suburban and exurban greenfield. There used to be natural agglomeration to central well connected nodes before the car. Many cities enacted height limits in the early 1900s with the specific aim to spread out development that was dense enough to make serving basic infrastructure, such as water, power, transit, and cleaning the mounting horseshit off the roads, increasingly expensive and difficult. Early real estate barons would buy marginal land and develop a streetcar line that ran into the job center, and sell plots off that line now that it finally had some utility in the form of a connection to jobs. Even if you worked in something specialized back then, chances are it was close to where most other people were working. Offices were downtown. Government buildings were downtown. Hospitals were downtown. Manufacturing was downtown. Ports and railheads were downtown. All of that snowballing enjoyed by cities exploded with the car.

lwansbrough 4mo ago

This is like, a post-hoc rationalization. Most jobs, not all, can take place inside a city. If you build your cities densely, people can live and work within the city and have all their needs met without the need for a car (see: the great cities of the world) If you design economic hubs properly, businesses can be located within reach of homes without the need for cars. If you instead prioritize the need for, I don’t know, a monoculture lawn and separation from lower class people, then you’re choosing to build suburbs. Once a city has built enough suburbs, businesses become out of reach without the use of a car.

lucumo 4mo ago
Since I've moved to my current home, I've had jobs in about 6 different towns and cities. I think for all of them I had colleagues that cycled to work and colleagues that drove for an hour or more. All these jobs had homes and shops within walking distance. But they are not within walking distance of each other.
rwyinuse 4mo ago
What if I want my own garden and not monoculture lawn? What if I want my children to be able to walk in nature near their home? Neither is possible in a densely built city where there are only apartments. Then there are all the social problems, bad neighbours that become more common in densely built areas. I don't want to deal with that. Suburbs are popular because they provide a superior quality of life for many people. Of course in an ideal world everyone would be allowed to do fully remote work if possible, and people like me could move to countryside.
- HEmanZ 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - queenkjuul 4mo ago
    They could have everything they want here in my neighborhood of Chicago: easy access to nature, room for a garden. Suburban Americans love to pretend that "cul de sac" and "Manhattan" are the only two types of place

throw0101a 4mo ago

> This is possible if you’re not picky about where you live, where you work, your career options, how crowded your local vicinity is, or how much you pay for your residence. Perhaps the problem is the lack of options for those people that want human-centric (versus car-centric) communities. Maybe if we let The Market™ decide, versus forcing low-density sprawl via zoning, more options would be available. Right now, if you look on any real estate web site, you'll probably find walkable neighbourhoods have higher prices non-walkable ones: there is demand for them, but a fixed supply since they're not being made anymore, and so they get bid up. Perhaps if there were more of them, especially around commuter rail stations, it would help.

quantumwannabe 4mo ago
We already tried that experiment. The result was Houston.
- HEmanZ 4mo ago
  Houston is not a free market for housing at all. They don’t have “zoning” because they call it “land use covenants” and “parking requirements” instead, and it ends up amounting to the same thing as “zoning” in other cities. And the market doesn’t build the streets, sidewalks, or set up public transport routes. I remember visiting my friend in an 400+ unit apartment complex in Houston. When I got up in the morning I was like “hey I’m going to walk down and get coffee.” My friend said to just Uber Eats it, I was like that’s insane. So I went down to the ground floor and found out there was literaly no way to walk to the coffee shop that was 0.1 miles away less than 30 minutes because of the absolute nightmare that is Huston streets and sidewalks.
- psd1 4mo ago
  I don't think we can learn much about pedestrianisation from Texas.
- throw0101a 4mo ago
  The City Beautiful channel goes over the restrictions that Houston has: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaU1UH_3B5k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaU1UH_3B5k For example deed restrictions, where, when a sub-division is created, the use case of the lots can never be changed. See also "residential buffering ordinance", parking requirement ordinance, historic districts, etc.

HEmanZ 4mo ago

I am liking the term “car brained” more and more for this type of attitude. Have you ever heard of trains, busses, bikes? The options for transportation are not binary car or no car. Maybe in North America where they refuse to provide even crappy public transport in most cities it feels this way, but in the rest of the world they are smart enough to build trains and don’t have this problem.