Remix clone Hacker News

Not at all.

When you're young and not tied down, and also likely lack much money, you prioritize a different lifestyle and are also in college to, presumably, accomplish your goal of getting a degree and learning something.

For many, once they get older and desire a slower, calmer, quieter life, and especially if you want more space with kids, the suburbs start holding more appeal. And that also factors in constraints about job availability.

▲

subpixel 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> the suburbs start holding more appeal.

Suburbs don't need to be car-dependent. The suburban appeal in fact has nothing to do with cars.

In Germany as just one example, there was (when I lived there) excellent, reliable bus service in and between suburbs. And connecting the suburbs to light rail, which connected to the city center.

The big complaint I had in my 20s was that the light rail stopped running before midnight.

▲

xp84 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Suburbs don't need to be car-dependent

Probably true, but unless you have infinite money, building enough housing with expensive rail infrastructure is pretty tough. We can only manage truly world-class(ish) transit in (parts of) one city, NYC, and plenty of people still routinely choose to move out of Manhattan upon having kids instead of staying, either because they can't afford enough space to reasonably make a go of it, or because it's so much easier to do the car-dependent suburb. So, the people themselves are choosing it. Whatever anyone thinks of it, there is plenty of evidence that a lot of people who have a choice choose something other than the urban walkable deal.

PS: Don't come at me please, I loved living in a big urban city, but moved out because I refused to choose only one of: big enough home, safe neighborhood, decent schools, reasonable commute distance. And honestly to stay in the urban core where I used to live, only "commute distance" was even available.

▲

mitthrowaway2 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Rail infrastructure is actually cheaper than car infrastructure, though, on a passenger-mile basis. However, the car infrastructure is paid for by the government, and rail is not.

▲

Aicy 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Then why have most cities and towns in Europe been able to do it without much trouble?

	▲	xp84 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Most cities and towns were built hundreds of years before most cities and towns in America were, so they're dense (because people needed to walk everywhere), which is perfect for rail. Take a look at a satellite view of the suburban areas where most Americans actually live. They're mostly post-1950 and were built with basically the opposite assumptions as Europe: 1. Homes spaced generously with residential districts stretching out tens of miles in every direction from the dense-ish core. 2. Homes fully isolated from business districts (i.e. anywhere anyone would want to go) 3. High-speed arterial stroads or, in tonier suburbs, basically expressways, which serve as the connection between neighborhoods. 4. Offices and other workplaces dispersed into strip malls, long stroads, and industrial parks throughout an area, rather than concentrated in a primary central business district. Turning all that into a cool Dutch city or town where people are going to bike or take trains everywhere pretty much requires bulldozing and starting again. Again I say this with no judgment, I think 'Not Just Bikes,' for instance, makes a perfectly good case that our way is lame and the Dutch are doing great. But realistically I would never hold my breath expecting the US to transform even 1/10 of the way to the Europe style of transport.

▲

tmnvix 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

So the 'young and not tied down' that are fortunate enough to go to college get to experience a more suitable environment while it suits them, but the less fortunate young people that don't get the opportunity to live in a college town get no such consideration I guess.