I just had an uncomfortable argument with my neighbour about electric cars. The man coached Olympic skiers and won gold medals with a combination of good physical training and adept psychology.
I wouldn’t usually argue, especially with someone who has been materially very kind to me when others mostly ignored my circumstances but I can at least say that I haven’t owned or driven a vehicle in twenty five years and frankly I wish they would mostly just go away, but alas cars and urban sprawl is everywhere taking up more and more space and critical resources.
It all started innocently enough with his complementing Elon Musk on his AI assisted auto piloted Teslas which he argued made driving cars so much safer, how electric cars are so much better for the environment, and I admit that’s largely true, electric cars are better. However in my lifetime I saw how new multi lane autoroutes shattered urban and rural communities alike, not to mention the accumulated lack of provisional maintenance and crumbling infrastructure now evident everywhere. I suggested that perhaps he consider not buying a new vehicle and do without, that it’s not a desirable benefit because what we really need going forward is fewer cars. He was adamant about his personal needs and wouldn’t even consider the possibility, convinced that nobody could take that away from him. I retorted that I would (as if I could or should and I feel ashamed for saying so). Basically, I doubt new electric cars will change anything, things are the same insofar as where I think we need to be and his vision of the future is somehow now fundamentally and diametrically opposed to mine.
Here’s my optimistic take. I claimed that the military industrial complex could be redeployed in response to the growing climate crisis by building on peaceful initiatives and sharing resources. INTBAU UN-Habitat and World Bank figures claim that by 2030 up to three billion people will need new housing and basic infrastructure. Sustainable, indigenous, traditional, local, and vernacular design solutions have the potential to create built environments that are inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
Sorry, that's rather Authoritarian and a big turn-off to we who prefer individualism over collectivism. Lloyd's right - a lot of blowback in his TH days. His own quoting of the splits between the parties shows exactly the philosophical differences - the Right prefers to be "just leave me alone" while it seems the Left always wants to "flock together".
Let each to his own self-interest and seeking their own Happiness. Stop forcing yours on others.
If your neighbor would be open to reading the book "Bright Green Lies: How the Environmental Movement Lost Its Way and What We Can Do About It" by Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith, and Max Wilbert, I believe he would change his mind. Their coverage of the issue of automobiles, including electric, simply blew my mind. If this gentleman still skies at all, he may be worried about the increasing dearth of snow and, if not now, he may soon become more open to considering what is really required to save the natural world. I would not give up on him yet.
Thanks Deborah I will read the article and continue to discuss things with my neighbour. His intention is to make good individual consumer choices and he has always been concerned about others. We are all doing the best we can given the complexity.
These kinds of surveys always make me wonder how many Americans even experienced a walkable lifestyle ever. If stereotypes of walkable cities involve crime, noise, visible poverty, and lack of privacy then it seems obvious why plenty of people don't want to live there. I myself thought "sure it'd be nice to have a grocery store within biking distance but I'm pretty happy in my private suburb". I didn't have my eyes opened until fairly recently when I had an extended stay in Germany.
It all comes back to messaging, in the end. How else will we persuade people who have never really experienced true walkability that they actually do want it?
I did, Clara, for my time getting my undergrad and starting my masters degree. Boston is a very walkable city and I did walk the neighborhoods (especially Southie where my Dad's family was). Used the "T" to go where I couldn't walk.
...and finally left because it was too crowded, to smelly, too expensive, too loud and too much crime. Said I never would raise a family in the city and now have been in a rural area for 40 years. I never want to go back: peace, serenity, the wild life, and nicer people. Small towns are like the TV show of Cheers - everyone knows everyone else.
And messaging has nothing to do with it. Just leave everyone else alone and make yourself happy.
My daughter lives in Philadelphia, but in a suburban part of the city. She's a 30 second walk to a train station that goes into the city center. It's great. I love to visit the city. We once lived right in Boston. It was wonderful to be able to walk to the office or to restaurants.
Now, we live in rural Maine. There are no stores, restaurants, or anything else within walking distance. Thete are no sidewalks. But it's beautiful. Right now there are several turkeys just outside my window, foraging under the bird feeders. Just before dark, we usually see a young fox doing the same thing as the turkeys. Occasionally, the fox and turkeys occupy the same space, eying each other warily. We like to sit outside before making dinner, watching the birds and smelling the nicotiana flowers which open late in the day. We'll usually stroll out to the vegetable garden and pick up something for dinner. It's great. We love living here. Would I like to be able to walk to the grocery store? Sure. But the tradeoffs are acceptable.
Before I retired, I was a lawyer. I mostly worked from home. Working from home has had a profound effect on where people are able to live. I
You sound like me except I'm in Central NH on Lake Winni. 'Cept we also have deer, bobcats, hawks, and the occasional bear strolling down the street.
There are a few people out my way but not close enough that I can't fire off a round or two at a target once in a while. And they don't care, either. We all just leave each other alone until someone has a need and then everyone shows up.
It seems to me that many people that say that they prefer to live in the city do so because they know that they can afford to escape the city on weekends and vacations...
Counterpoint: look at all the suburbanites who vacation in walkable cities, and who drive into the city to see sports games, concerts, theatre, or comedy.
People just like variety, and so those who can afford it will spend money to experience the pleasures that are on offer in places different from where they live.
For those who aren’t so well off, a walkable city is a pretty good place to find a density of job opportunities, and being able to ditch the car and commute to work by cheaper forms of a transportation can free up a lot of room in a tight budget.
And here's another idea for those not so well off. How about we stop dragging down the economy with ridiculous green mandates so that even the not so well off can afford a car.
> For those who aren’t so well off, a walkable city is a pretty good place to find a density of job opportunities, and being able to ditch the car and commute to work by cheaper forms of a transportation can free up a lot of room in a tight budget.
The downside that you are now dependent on others, beholden to the train schedule and the bus route, for your transportation.
Or your own two foot, or a bicycle. Besides the abundance of other ways to get around, trains and buses are a perfectly dignified way of getting around when they are frequent and reliable.
Besides, drivers are equally beholden to a variety of limitations of their transportation mode: the gas station, the auto shop, the insurance company, the time wasted circling the block looking for parking... In places built so that a car is the only practical way to get around, the cost of car ownership basically functions as another tax. Your state department of transportation is already blowing loads of your tax dollars on roads and traffic lights and interchanges, but if you actually want to get any transportation services out of all that government spending, you’re then forced to pay an ADDITIONAL tax to the United States of General Motors.
I’m sympathetic to arguments for freedom, I just think that includes the freedom to not HAVE to drive. Cars are an ingenious invention, and for certain transportation needs, they can be the best choice. But freedom means having OPTIONS.
> Besides the abundance of other ways to get around, trains and buses are a perfectly dignified way of getting around when they are frequent and reliable.
Assuming you want to go where the train or bus routes go.
> Besides, drivers are equally beholden to a variety of limitations of their transportation mode
Edit: oops, I made the mistake of thinking I was in discussion with the commenter I originally replied to, then realized it was actually just the bottom-feeder culture war troll of the comment section. Bye.
If you mean a low traffic neighbourhood, then no. Please provide more information so I can disprove the claim people are "banned from leaving" which truly is a moronic statement.
I love the idea of 15 minute cities. The culture in America is so focused on profit instead of happiness, I think people imagine some kind of homesteading fantasy will bring them happiness through control. Driving 26 minutes to work on a regular basis is not freedom but I am a victim of Cold War survival planning. Spread it all out so the nukes don’t kill us all, I guess. But a walkable city where people could interact may frighten a lot of younger people with little value for human interaction, as they are used to interaction only through the silicon obsession device.
Read it at the time and affirmed it was what I knew or at least suspected or thought I remembered from reading (old even then) magazines 40 years or so ago.
I believe I remember reading that in the past! I know that when the highway system was designed, they have the straightaways that they have to use the road as a landing strip if the Russkies blew up all the airports. I’m sure it would have worked out without any problems, [slaps forehead]
The age graph is very telling to me. In the years when people are starting families, they prefer larger houses. This makes sense if city life tends to appeal to bright-eyed, single adults who are told that they should be free before having kids means they need to settle down into a quiet, safe neighborhood. America is still selling the myth of city = fun, yuppy lifestyle, suburbs = boring, safe, secluded investment in net worth and your children’s future. Urbanists don’t always dismantle this myth or reckon with the motivations behind it. “Move to the city and bike in the rain because it helps the environment” is something self-sacrifical that sounds like it can only work for the yougsters who have the extra bandwidth to care about such things. It falls on deaf ears with perpetually overwhelmed parents who feel like the most sacrificial thing they could do is stretch their budget for a big house in the middle of boring-ville for their children to play safely in.
On another note, the postive take on the above research is that it’s not a massive majority. I think something like 70% of Americans live in suburbs. If only 56% want to live there, that means roughly 14% of Americans would rather live somewhere more urban than they currently live. That’s a sizeable market share to capture. In theory, this means that the demand is still there for building more walkable communities.
Lloyd, you’re not wrong! I'm a little late on the comments, but 40% is a lot of people and given the cost of living in walkable communities the supply is far short of demand. So why don’t we meet demand so people can choose how they want to live?
The real issue here though is not what people prefer, but what people can actually afford. Suburban lifestyles and driving are heavily subsidized (see StrongTowns.org) and financially unsustainable. Do the math, remove the subsidies, and then have people pay the actual cost of their lifestyle choices.
Right now I’m paying taxes to have a massive highway expansion make my neighborhood less livable, so people who chose to live in suburbs 30 miles outside the city can commute without delay (or so developers and politicians can get rich building more stuff). I don’t need this highway. Why am I paying for asthma?
And there’s the answer.
We don’t have walkable neighborhoods for the 40% who want them because if I don’t need my car, I’m not going to be so willing to subsidize yours. And all the commercial (and political) interests that depend on us driving won’t let that happen. Transportation in America is a socialist system, and we all have to participate whether we want to or not for it to stay solvent.
So I live in the suburbs but in a walkable area (30 minutes to restaurants shops library coffee, etc) and we walk or bike to everything we can. I find that there are two issues with people walking for necessities. First it is associated with poverty and this gives it a negative association. Second is the weather, ie too hot raining too cold. Recently I was walking to the library and one of my neighbors who was driving by asked if she could give me a ride (because she was concerned I was walking in the heat) and she could not conceive that I wanted to walk and it was not too hot to do so. (And I realize that is not true for everyone)
the green agenda being forced, and not being affordable is all driven by the left side. no one is biking to the office in Houston in the summer, unless you have a shower at work. Same with any city in the midwest, or south.
Well, it isn't folks like me that want to just be left alone and want others to find their own Happiness.
Unfortunately, there are too many whose Happiness consists of demanding or forcing changes in behavior or lifestyles of folks like me. At some point, I will lose my patience. And so will a whole lot of others. Some of already are.
well put, the best is their fake virtue signalling, like when mayor pete got caught unloading the bike out of a big old suburban, to ride a couple hundred feet for a photo op
I just had an uncomfortable argument with my neighbour about electric cars. The man coached Olympic skiers and won gold medals with a combination of good physical training and adept psychology.
I wouldn’t usually argue, especially with someone who has been materially very kind to me when others mostly ignored my circumstances but I can at least say that I haven’t owned or driven a vehicle in twenty five years and frankly I wish they would mostly just go away, but alas cars and urban sprawl is everywhere taking up more and more space and critical resources.
It all started innocently enough with his complementing Elon Musk on his AI assisted auto piloted Teslas which he argued made driving cars so much safer, how electric cars are so much better for the environment, and I admit that’s largely true, electric cars are better. However in my lifetime I saw how new multi lane autoroutes shattered urban and rural communities alike, not to mention the accumulated lack of provisional maintenance and crumbling infrastructure now evident everywhere. I suggested that perhaps he consider not buying a new vehicle and do without, that it’s not a desirable benefit because what we really need going forward is fewer cars. He was adamant about his personal needs and wouldn’t even consider the possibility, convinced that nobody could take that away from him. I retorted that I would (as if I could or should and I feel ashamed for saying so). Basically, I doubt new electric cars will change anything, things are the same insofar as where I think we need to be and his vision of the future is somehow now fundamentally and diametrically opposed to mine.
Here’s my optimistic take. I claimed that the military industrial complex could be redeployed in response to the growing climate crisis by building on peaceful initiatives and sharing resources. INTBAU UN-Habitat and World Bank figures claim that by 2030 up to three billion people will need new housing and basic infrastructure. Sustainable, indigenous, traditional, local, and vernacular design solutions have the potential to create built environments that are inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
>> I retorted that I would
Sorry, that's rather Authoritarian and a big turn-off to we who prefer individualism over collectivism. Lloyd's right - a lot of blowback in his TH days. His own quoting of the splits between the parties shows exactly the philosophical differences - the Right prefers to be "just leave me alone" while it seems the Left always wants to "flock together".
Let each to his own self-interest and seeking their own Happiness. Stop forcing yours on others.
The discussion around Becoming Gaia offers a realistic guide to becoming ourselves. https://youtu.be/9J9fb_XWmZQ?si=E4e1N_nvlaua_byv
If your neighbor would be open to reading the book "Bright Green Lies: How the Environmental Movement Lost Its Way and What We Can Do About It" by Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith, and Max Wilbert, I believe he would change his mind. Their coverage of the issue of automobiles, including electric, simply blew my mind. If this gentleman still skies at all, he may be worried about the increasing dearth of snow and, if not now, he may soon become more open to considering what is really required to save the natural world. I would not give up on him yet.
Thanks Deborah I will read the article and continue to discuss things with my neighbour. His intention is to make good individual consumer choices and he has always been concerned about others. We are all doing the best we can given the complexity.
You are right about my retort, it was poor judgment on my part.
These kinds of surveys always make me wonder how many Americans even experienced a walkable lifestyle ever. If stereotypes of walkable cities involve crime, noise, visible poverty, and lack of privacy then it seems obvious why plenty of people don't want to live there. I myself thought "sure it'd be nice to have a grocery store within biking distance but I'm pretty happy in my private suburb". I didn't have my eyes opened until fairly recently when I had an extended stay in Germany.
It all comes back to messaging, in the end. How else will we persuade people who have never really experienced true walkability that they actually do want it?
I did, Clara, for my time getting my undergrad and starting my masters degree. Boston is a very walkable city and I did walk the neighborhoods (especially Southie where my Dad's family was). Used the "T" to go where I couldn't walk.
...and finally left because it was too crowded, to smelly, too expensive, too loud and too much crime. Said I never would raise a family in the city and now have been in a rural area for 40 years. I never want to go back: peace, serenity, the wild life, and nicer people. Small towns are like the TV show of Cheers - everyone knows everyone else.
And messaging has nothing to do with it. Just leave everyone else alone and make yourself happy.
completely agree, give me space, and a beautiful back yard, and leave me to live my life, not decide my life choices for me
Don't worry, Germany is doing it's best to import the crime into the city.
My daughter lives in Philadelphia, but in a suburban part of the city. She's a 30 second walk to a train station that goes into the city center. It's great. I love to visit the city. We once lived right in Boston. It was wonderful to be able to walk to the office or to restaurants.
Now, we live in rural Maine. There are no stores, restaurants, or anything else within walking distance. Thete are no sidewalks. But it's beautiful. Right now there are several turkeys just outside my window, foraging under the bird feeders. Just before dark, we usually see a young fox doing the same thing as the turkeys. Occasionally, the fox and turkeys occupy the same space, eying each other warily. We like to sit outside before making dinner, watching the birds and smelling the nicotiana flowers which open late in the day. We'll usually stroll out to the vegetable garden and pick up something for dinner. It's great. We love living here. Would I like to be able to walk to the grocery store? Sure. But the tradeoffs are acceptable.
Before I retired, I was a lawyer. I mostly worked from home. Working from home has had a profound effect on where people are able to live. I
You sound like me except I'm in Central NH on Lake Winni. 'Cept we also have deer, bobcats, hawks, and the occasional bear strolling down the street.
There are a few people out my way but not close enough that I can't fire off a round or two at a target once in a while. And they don't care, either. We all just leave each other alone until someone has a need and then everyone shows up.
It seems to me that many people that say that they prefer to live in the city do so because they know that they can afford to escape the city on weekends and vacations...
Counterpoint: look at all the suburbanites who vacation in walkable cities, and who drive into the city to see sports games, concerts, theatre, or comedy.
People just like variety, and so those who can afford it will spend money to experience the pleasures that are on offer in places different from where they live.
For those who aren’t so well off, a walkable city is a pretty good place to find a density of job opportunities, and being able to ditch the car and commute to work by cheaper forms of a transportation can free up a lot of room in a tight budget.
And here's another idea for those not so well off. How about we stop dragging down the economy with ridiculous green mandates so that even the not so well off can afford a car.
> For those who aren’t so well off, a walkable city is a pretty good place to find a density of job opportunities, and being able to ditch the car and commute to work by cheaper forms of a transportation can free up a lot of room in a tight budget.
The downside that you are now dependent on others, beholden to the train schedule and the bus route, for your transportation.
Or your own two foot, or a bicycle. Besides the abundance of other ways to get around, trains and buses are a perfectly dignified way of getting around when they are frequent and reliable.
Besides, drivers are equally beholden to a variety of limitations of their transportation mode: the gas station, the auto shop, the insurance company, the time wasted circling the block looking for parking... In places built so that a car is the only practical way to get around, the cost of car ownership basically functions as another tax. Your state department of transportation is already blowing loads of your tax dollars on roads and traffic lights and interchanges, but if you actually want to get any transportation services out of all that government spending, you’re then forced to pay an ADDITIONAL tax to the United States of General Motors.
I’m sympathetic to arguments for freedom, I just think that includes the freedom to not HAVE to drive. Cars are an ingenious invention, and for certain transportation needs, they can be the best choice. But freedom means having OPTIONS.
> Or your own two foot, or a bicycle.
Much smaller radius.
> Besides the abundance of other ways to get around, trains and buses are a perfectly dignified way of getting around when they are frequent and reliable.
Assuming you want to go where the train or bus routes go.
> Besides, drivers are equally beholden to a variety of limitations of their transportation mode
A lot fewer then public transportation.
Edit: oops, I made the mistake of thinking I was in discussion with the commenter I originally replied to, then realized it was actually just the bottom-feeder culture war troll of the comment section. Bye.
and here's the personal attack, always so predictable
Out of arguments, I see.
>>by cheaper forms of a transportation can free up a lot of room in a tight budget.
Aren't those "savings" eaten up by housing and food costs?
> I have been struggling for an hour to figure out how to end this post because I always try to be positive
Well, the fact that the majority of Americans object to being trapped in 15-minute prisons is positive.
That's not what 15 min cities means. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
That is how they were being implemented in practice.
No not really. Please tell me which location prevents you from leaving, come on!
See what they tried to do in Oxford.
If you mean a low traffic neighbourhood, then no. Please provide more information so I can disprove the claim people are "banned from leaving" which truly is a moronic statement.
Not outright banned, yet, but restricted in how often they can leave.
I love the idea of 15 minute cities. The culture in America is so focused on profit instead of happiness, I think people imagine some kind of homesteading fantasy will bring them happiness through control. Driving 26 minutes to work on a regular basis is not freedom but I am a victim of Cold War survival planning. Spread it all out so the nukes don’t kill us all, I guess. But a walkable city where people could interact may frighten a lot of younger people with little value for human interaction, as they are used to interaction only through the silicon obsession device.
Very few people get that so much of suburban planning was about avoiding nukes! I wrote about this a few years ago and people thought I was nuts. https://www.treehugger.com/why-sprawl-was-caused-nuclear-arms-race-and-why-matters-more-ever-today-4854403
Read it at the time and affirmed it was what I knew or at least suspected or thought I remembered from reading (old even then) magazines 40 years or so ago.
I believe I remember reading that in the past! I know that when the highway system was designed, they have the straightaways that they have to use the road as a landing strip if the Russkies blew up all the airports. I’m sure it would have worked out without any problems, [slaps forehead]
> I love the idea of 15 minute cities.
I love the idea of not being trapped with a 15 minute walking radius.
pretty hard to evacuate in a disaster, too
The age graph is very telling to me. In the years when people are starting families, they prefer larger houses. This makes sense if city life tends to appeal to bright-eyed, single adults who are told that they should be free before having kids means they need to settle down into a quiet, safe neighborhood. America is still selling the myth of city = fun, yuppy lifestyle, suburbs = boring, safe, secluded investment in net worth and your children’s future. Urbanists don’t always dismantle this myth or reckon with the motivations behind it. “Move to the city and bike in the rain because it helps the environment” is something self-sacrifical that sounds like it can only work for the yougsters who have the extra bandwidth to care about such things. It falls on deaf ears with perpetually overwhelmed parents who feel like the most sacrificial thing they could do is stretch their budget for a big house in the middle of boring-ville for their children to play safely in.
On another note, the postive take on the above research is that it’s not a massive majority. I think something like 70% of Americans live in suburbs. If only 56% want to live there, that means roughly 14% of Americans would rather live somewhere more urban than they currently live. That’s a sizeable market share to capture. In theory, this means that the demand is still there for building more walkable communities.
I don't see why necessarily higher density means smaller housing. The amount of space the US wastes on parking is staggering. And of course the zoning laws increase the distances further. Car journey lengths are not that long in the US mostly: https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1042-august-13-2018-2017-nearly-60-all-vehicle-trips-were-less-six. Many could easily be swapped for cycling.
Lloyd, you’re not wrong! I'm a little late on the comments, but 40% is a lot of people and given the cost of living in walkable communities the supply is far short of demand. So why don’t we meet demand so people can choose how they want to live?
The real issue here though is not what people prefer, but what people can actually afford. Suburban lifestyles and driving are heavily subsidized (see StrongTowns.org) and financially unsustainable. Do the math, remove the subsidies, and then have people pay the actual cost of their lifestyle choices.
Right now I’m paying taxes to have a massive highway expansion make my neighborhood less livable, so people who chose to live in suburbs 30 miles outside the city can commute without delay (or so developers and politicians can get rich building more stuff). I don’t need this highway. Why am I paying for asthma?
And there’s the answer.
We don’t have walkable neighborhoods for the 40% who want them because if I don’t need my car, I’m not going to be so willing to subsidize yours. And all the commercial (and political) interests that depend on us driving won’t let that happen. Transportation in America is a socialist system, and we all have to participate whether we want to or not for it to stay solvent.
So I live in the suburbs but in a walkable area (30 minutes to restaurants shops library coffee, etc) and we walk or bike to everything we can. I find that there are two issues with people walking for necessities. First it is associated with poverty and this gives it a negative association. Second is the weather, ie too hot raining too cold. Recently I was walking to the library and one of my neighbors who was driving by asked if she could give me a ride (because she was concerned I was walking in the heat) and she could not conceive that I wanted to walk and it was not too hot to do so. (And I realize that is not true for everyone)
"But it is hard to be positive when you just see more division and polarization every day"
Ask yourself (a) why that is, and (b) who's leading the polarization. Then you'll understand the answers to your questions.
the green agenda being forced, and not being affordable is all driven by the left side. no one is biking to the office in Houston in the summer, unless you have a shower at work. Same with any city in the midwest, or south.
>> who's leading the polarization
Well, it isn't folks like me that want to just be left alone and want others to find their own Happiness.
Unfortunately, there are too many whose Happiness consists of demanding or forcing changes in behavior or lifestyles of folks like me. At some point, I will lose my patience. And so will a whole lot of others. Some of already are.
well put, the best is their fake virtue signalling, like when mayor pete got caught unloading the bike out of a big old suburban, to ride a couple hundred feet for a photo op