| |
| ▲ | iamnothere 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is a regional problem. Legislation to require pedestrian accessibility would fix it. Where I live every new development must build out sidewalks as a condition of permitting. | |
| ▲ | 1234letshaveatw 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't follow, are people then not able to choose to live somewhere that has shopping facilities or hospitals that are built so as not to be only accessible by automobile? | | |
| ▲ | Earw0rm an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, if such places are plentiful. It's a messy situation where revealed preference (house prices in walkable areas, Amsterdam and Paris increasingly full of rich young Americans) vs immediate consumer choice (more cars! More convenience! Oops, now we need to flatten downtown for an elevated freeway...) tend to give conflicting answers. | |
| ▲ | mynameisbilly 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We shouldn't have to completely upend our lives to move to the small handful of major cities that provide the infrastructure to exist comfortably without a car. At least in the US, your options are limited to NYC, Chicago, Boston, and maybe a few others (Seattle/SF). And even then, the hard set default in these major cities is car ownership EXCEPT for NYC. | | |
| ▲ | iamnothere 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | How is Bumfuck MT, population 250, going to support the infrastructure to live comfortably without a car? | | |
| ▲ | omegabravo 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | as someone who lives there, they're not. Nor is that what is being suggested, it's critiquing car-centric cities where not having a car is needlessly difficult. Population 250 isn't going to ban cars, but the city may discourage driving and provide ample facilities for those who don't have a car. | | |
| ▲ | iamnothere 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well I do agree that city living should not require a car, although cars should be an option for those who need them. I just don’t think it’s realistic to expect rural areas to discourage car use. Not everyone in rural communities has a car, but for many they are essential. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | sofixa 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > re people then not able to choose to live somewhere No, because no such somewhere has been built in the country in question (US) in the past ~60 years, because the default is car-centric. So you're left with a few uber dense, old, predating automobiles, places. Which are extremely expensive, because they simply do not have the capacity for everyone who wants to live in them. | | |
| ▲ | ghaff 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are plenty of city centers that aren't super-expensive but probably don't have a lot of great local employment options and maybe aren't generally considered desirable--and don't have a lot of great transportation options to outlying areas though that's generally true of a lot of major Tier 1 cities as well. You prioritize your choices. |
|
|
|
