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.
There is undersupply of walkable urbanism compared to the demand for it. Let it be legal so developers can build for the people who want it. But the article is correct: most people do not want it. Second, walkable neighborhoods do not exist in a vacuum. I live two blocks from a grocer and other retailers, and a quarter mile from many others, but I have to cross at least one dangerous traffic sewer to get there. Developers and the market cannot address this. This is principally a municipal transportation problem, but is also influenced to varying degrees by the county, the MPO, the state, and the federal government.
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.
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]
Except that’s exactly how it is implemented in practice.
Claims about being trapped are utter BS based on wild misinterpretations of unrelated traffic circulation plans implemented or proposed by some cities.
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.
It’s not that I don’t think the results have any validity – but why are property values consistently higher in towns with walkable centers, especially those with historic human-scaled buildings and green spaces?
I think you need to consider the (deserved) collapse of trust in the shitty American system that determines what is built.
Whenever someone proposes dense housing here, my heart sinks, not at people coming in, but at the prospect of hideous, oversized cubes designed to maximize profits and feed junkie billionaires’ habits. If the zoning requires green space, developers slap down some sod and a few shrubs – nothing that compares to actual meadow or woodland that humans crave. The taxpayers inevitably get stuck with surprise infrastructure costs - and can’t afford to increase actual amenities, like parks or transportation, that are part of the denser housing balance.
Until the best interests of the community become a driver in what gets built, we are dead in the water, I think.
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.
Walkable communities are not a real option in most of the nation. In the few places there is density with transit and historic mixed use walkability, demand is insane. I don’t see a great deal of wisdom in these polls.
I think people already walk more in the UK and Europe than they do in North America, though I’ve found myself walking some distances in Portland, Oregon for instance, and also in Rochester NY where almost nobody else was on foot! But walking somewhere tends to take longer and use more energy and expose people to more kinds of weather (I live in Scotland) than driving. I have walked quite a lot when younger, but currently unable to walk very far for medical reasons, so the idea that some places will be permanently inaccessible to vehicles doesn’t attract me at all.
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.
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)
Self reporting on surveys are problematic. People sometimes answer in a way that reinforces that they are moral persons, even if it does not accurately represent their preferences. That why I doubt these surveys when they show a preference for walkability.
Walking takes energy. So does talking to other people or, heaven forbid, engaging with your community. Naturally, we’ve spent millennia perfecting the art of doing less—first by outsourcing to animals, then machines (like cars), and now algorithms. AI is just the latest stroke of genius in our grand quest to minimize effort. Why bother with messy, inefficient human neural networks when we can build artificial ones to do the thinking for us? Throw in some buzzwords, call it progress, and voilà—everyone’s throwing capital at it like it’s the new iPhone.
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
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.
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.
We have a collective interest, we want to build places for the next seven generations, not just this one.
The era of cheap available energy will be a very short one in the grand sweep of history. Cars will not be going forward with us. The people stranded in suburbs and exurbs will be left out unless they are connected with public transit.
If you have children or family that has children, building cities that are future proof is in your interest too.
You can SAY "we" but you're being rather imperious in doing so - how condescending to those that disagree with you like your friend. What is your basis for making that assumption? You're being like "Arther" in some of the other posts that we all must belong to the same tribe.
Sorry, with your attitude towards the needs AND wants of others, I do not want to be part of your tribe or collective. To force me (and many others) is called Oppression.
Why is it that so many on the Left are totally willing to take things away from perfect strangers just on one's personal whim without understanding other peoples' circumstances. That why I used "Authoritarian". So, what material thing(s) that you own that I should take away for the perceived benefit of someone else that doesn't know you either?
However, thanks for identifying yourself as Lloyd ideological doppleganger concerning cars.
My basis for making that assumption is that we have more in common than you think. Both of us are anti authoritarian, both of us want to make a better world for the people we love.
The difference might be that I look to the deep past for solutions, while you seem to rely on the recent past.
Speaking of which, we can see the trajectory of personal freedom from feudalism to capitalism. We see that the ability to own capital was stopped being the privilege of feudal lords and kings and was afforded to everyone. What we don’t see is the change in proportion of ownership, it’s still about the same amount of people who own the same amount of capital. While it’s much easier to change who you pledge your working life to, it doesn’t matter for most people, we give our time for very little in return. As a solution to personal freedom, we haven’t gained much in the last 500yrs as regular folk. Sure, we have a lot more things, but we don’t even have the Lord to keep our job if we get sick or a village to help us out if we lose a hand or foot. Failure to thrive is even less of an option now, I’m sure you know people from high school who didn’t make it.
It leads me to the question of how to bring power and decision making back from the elites and powerful, how do we become our own lords or bosses. Many cultures like this have existed and continue to exist. We can shape our future in this way if we want.
I think you would like a future where you had more input into the direction of your community, I don’t think you like people thousands of miles away telling you how to live your life.
>> My basis for making that assumption is that we have more in common than you think
Highly doubtful.
I have nothing in common with Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Putin and anyone else that desires Authoritarian rule (either Communistic, Socialistic, Neo-Feudalism, et al).
Since you have already identified your self as an Authoritarian:
>> convinced that nobody could take that [his car] away from him. I retorted that I would
>> As a solution to personal freedom, we haven’t gained much in the last 500yrs as regular folk.
You are confusing Individual Freedoms with an economic system. All of the other governmental systems I listed, the governing philosophy and their economic systems are intertwined. Other than the substantial Right to Private Property, our Constitution never mentions an economic system, relying instead on personal freedoms to freely trade and contract with each other.
The freedom of the Magna Carta is the one we have now and also the freedom of the American revolution. It’s the freedom of the powerful to dominate the powerless. It granted rights to barons to exploit their lands as they wish without interference of the King. This was what the American revolution was fought for. The merchants of the colonies resented the authority of the King, they wanted it for themselves and still have it today.
The freedom enshrined in the Charter of the Forest, hardly any of it left today, was the right of everyone to have access to common resources. Communities could decide together how to organize themselves, how to schedule the use of the commons, they took care of each other, even though some couldn’t take care of themselves, and even though they had to pay the nobles something of their production, the things they made belonged to them. While collective in nature, it restricted the encroachment of the authority of the King and nobles. It knew that power should be at the grassroots of a culture. I think you agree that’s where power should be if your claim to be anti authoritarian is genuine.
Centuries of encroachment on our power has led us to this current neo feudal situation where we are in now. The financial system and real estate investment trusts are extracting so much money from us for housing that many people can’t afford to live. When we demand change our government threatens us with the boot, I was at the Ottawa convoy in 2020 and saw what happened. I think you’ll agree that’s where power was not the action of a government that values freedom. This is the Magna Carta in full effect. Our rich nobles live with absolute freedom to do what they want, we have to do what they tell us or face the consequences.
You can say we don’t have much in common and maybe we don’t if you think people making millions of dollars from the housing and rents that people struggle to pay is ok, but I think you value personal freedom too much.
I know I would choose the Charter of the Forest and the community it creates. What would you choose?
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.
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.
There is undersupply of walkable urbanism compared to the demand for it. Let it be legal so developers can build for the people who want it. But the article is correct: most people do not want it. Second, walkable neighborhoods do not exist in a vacuum. I live two blocks from a grocer and other retailers, and a quarter mile from many others, but I have to cross at least one dangerous traffic sewer to get there. Developers and the market cannot address this. This is principally a municipal transportation problem, but is also influenced to varying degrees by the county, the MPO, the state, and the federal government.
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.
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.
15 minute cities means you have the necessary amenities within a 15 minute radius – not that you are confined to that district. SMH.
That's not how the "15 minute cities" program gets implemented in practice.
Except that’s exactly how it is implemented in practice.
Claims about being trapped are utter BS based on wild misinterpretations of unrelated traffic circulation plans implemented or proposed by some cities.
How do they get implemented in practice?
With restrictions on how often people could leave their 15 minute sections.
Where can I find more info on this?
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.
It’s not that I don’t think the results have any validity – but why are property values consistently higher in towns with walkable centers, especially those with historic human-scaled buildings and green spaces?
I think you need to consider the (deserved) collapse of trust in the shitty American system that determines what is built.
Whenever someone proposes dense housing here, my heart sinks, not at people coming in, but at the prospect of hideous, oversized cubes designed to maximize profits and feed junkie billionaires’ habits. If the zoning requires green space, developers slap down some sod and a few shrubs – nothing that compares to actual meadow or woodland that humans crave. The taxpayers inevitably get stuck with surprise infrastructure costs - and can’t afford to increase actual amenities, like parks or transportation, that are part of the denser housing balance.
Until the best interests of the community become a driver in what gets built, we are dead in the water, I think.
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.
> 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.
You mean implement traffic filters which still allow you to use the ring toad to bypass them?
Yeah, the Oxford canard from 15-min conspiracymongers is getting tired given how easily debunked it is.
I.e., gradually make it more inconvenient.
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.
Walkable communities are not a real option in most of the nation. In the few places there is density with transit and historic mixed use walkability, demand is insane. I don’t see a great deal of wisdom in these polls.
I think people already walk more in the UK and Europe than they do in North America, though I’ve found myself walking some distances in Portland, Oregon for instance, and also in Rochester NY where almost nobody else was on foot! But walking somewhere tends to take longer and use more energy and expose people to more kinds of weather (I live in Scotland) than driving. I have walked quite a lot when younger, but currently unable to walk very far for medical reasons, so the idea that some places will be permanently inaccessible to vehicles doesn’t attract me at all.
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.
>>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?
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.
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)
Self reporting on surveys are problematic. People sometimes answer in a way that reinforces that they are moral persons, even if it does not accurately represent their preferences. That why I doubt these surveys when they show a preference for walkability.
Walking takes energy. So does talking to other people or, heaven forbid, engaging with your community. Naturally, we’ve spent millennia perfecting the art of doing less—first by outsourcing to animals, then machines (like cars), and now algorithms. AI is just the latest stroke of genius in our grand quest to minimize effort. Why bother with messy, inefficient human neural networks when we can build artificial ones to do the thinking for us? Throw in some buzzwords, call it progress, and voilà—everyone’s throwing capital at it like it’s the new iPhone.
"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.
>> 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
Blames division on the other side by saying divisive things.
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.
>> 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.
We have a collective interest, we want to build places for the next seven generations, not just this one.
The era of cheap available energy will be a very short one in the grand sweep of history. Cars will not be going forward with us. The people stranded in suburbs and exurbs will be left out unless they are connected with public transit.
If you have children or family that has children, building cities that are future proof is in your interest too.
You can SAY "we" but you're being rather imperious in doing so - how condescending to those that disagree with you like your friend. What is your basis for making that assumption? You're being like "Arther" in some of the other posts that we all must belong to the same tribe.
Sorry, with your attitude towards the needs AND wants of others, I do not want to be part of your tribe or collective. To force me (and many others) is called Oppression.
Why is it that so many on the Left are totally willing to take things away from perfect strangers just on one's personal whim without understanding other peoples' circumstances. That why I used "Authoritarian". So, what material thing(s) that you own that I should take away for the perceived benefit of someone else that doesn't know you either?
However, thanks for identifying yourself as Lloyd ideological doppleganger concerning cars.
My basis for making that assumption is that we have more in common than you think. Both of us are anti authoritarian, both of us want to make a better world for the people we love.
The difference might be that I look to the deep past for solutions, while you seem to rely on the recent past.
Speaking of which, we can see the trajectory of personal freedom from feudalism to capitalism. We see that the ability to own capital was stopped being the privilege of feudal lords and kings and was afforded to everyone. What we don’t see is the change in proportion of ownership, it’s still about the same amount of people who own the same amount of capital. While it’s much easier to change who you pledge your working life to, it doesn’t matter for most people, we give our time for very little in return. As a solution to personal freedom, we haven’t gained much in the last 500yrs as regular folk. Sure, we have a lot more things, but we don’t even have the Lord to keep our job if we get sick or a village to help us out if we lose a hand or foot. Failure to thrive is even less of an option now, I’m sure you know people from high school who didn’t make it.
It leads me to the question of how to bring power and decision making back from the elites and powerful, how do we become our own lords or bosses. Many cultures like this have existed and continue to exist. We can shape our future in this way if we want.
I think you would like a future where you had more input into the direction of your community, I don’t think you like people thousands of miles away telling you how to live your life.
>> My basis for making that assumption is that we have more in common than you think
Highly doubtful.
I have nothing in common with Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Putin and anyone else that desires Authoritarian rule (either Communistic, Socialistic, Neo-Feudalism, et al).
Since you have already identified your self as an Authoritarian:
>> convinced that nobody could take that [his car] away from him. I retorted that I would
>> As a solution to personal freedom, we haven’t gained much in the last 500yrs as regular folk.
You are confusing Individual Freedoms with an economic system. All of the other governmental systems I listed, the governing philosophy and their economic systems are intertwined. Other than the substantial Right to Private Property, our Constitution never mentions an economic system, relying instead on personal freedoms to freely trade and contract with each other.
If you have some time look into both the Magna Carta and the Charter of the Forest. They put forward two different conceptions of freedom.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_Forest
The freedom of the Magna Carta is the one we have now and also the freedom of the American revolution. It’s the freedom of the powerful to dominate the powerless. It granted rights to barons to exploit their lands as they wish without interference of the King. This was what the American revolution was fought for. The merchants of the colonies resented the authority of the King, they wanted it for themselves and still have it today.
The freedom enshrined in the Charter of the Forest, hardly any of it left today, was the right of everyone to have access to common resources. Communities could decide together how to organize themselves, how to schedule the use of the commons, they took care of each other, even though some couldn’t take care of themselves, and even though they had to pay the nobles something of their production, the things they made belonged to them. While collective in nature, it restricted the encroachment of the authority of the King and nobles. It knew that power should be at the grassroots of a culture. I think you agree that’s where power should be if your claim to be anti authoritarian is genuine.
Centuries of encroachment on our power has led us to this current neo feudal situation where we are in now. The financial system and real estate investment trusts are extracting so much money from us for housing that many people can’t afford to live. When we demand change our government threatens us with the boot, I was at the Ottawa convoy in 2020 and saw what happened. I think you’ll agree that’s where power was not the action of a government that values freedom. This is the Magna Carta in full effect. Our rich nobles live with absolute freedom to do what they want, we have to do what they tell us or face the consequences.
You can say we don’t have much in common and maybe we don’t if you think people making millions of dollars from the housing and rents that people struggle to pay is ok, but I think you value personal freedom too much.
I know I would choose the Charter of the Forest and the community it creates. What would you choose?
>> to becoming ourselves...
Sorry, but I've known "who I am" for decades so I'm good. No need to become someone else's notion of who/what I should be.
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.