Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only reason the so-called "cost" of parking is more than negligible is because of high land values. Of course when cities get dense/overcrowded that means land values soar and it costs a more than negligible amount to provide parking. This is what I am calling sick and twisted, but many people are so used to it they don't bat an eye. We humans are pretty flexible, and we seemingly adapt to even the claustrophobia-inducing conditions so loved by urbanists. But that was not our natural environment for tens of thousands of years. We were used to a little space. A yard around our house and a driveway for visitors to park in are hardly the wide-open spaces of yesteryear, but even that small iota of space sure as hell beats urban living.
What you call "sick and twisted" I call "the way I like to live." I enjoy living in dense cities and I hate nondense suburbs or rural areas.
You are welcome to dislike cities. That's your opinion. But don't act like your preference is the true right way that humans are meant to live. That's nonsense. It's a subjective choice that's up to the individual preference.
The "natural environment for tens of thousands of years" was complete abject poverty and starvation for the vast majority of the human population. The majority of the world practiced slavery for thousands of years. Just because something goes on for thousands of years doesn't mean it's desirable.
(I am not saying that living outside cities is bad like slavery. I am simply saying that defending something by saying "but it went on for tens of thousands of years!" is a really really dumb argument.)
I don't see anything the least bit funny about it. Humanity is going backwards by living jammed together like sardines. The automobile age was actually the high point of human development, not technologically speaking of course (which would be space travel and computers) but humanly speaking. Just stop and think about it: Maximum personal freedom to go where we wanted, when we wanted, either far or near, and partake of social interaction (gatherings of family and friends), live music and theatre, or pursue the joys of nature far from permanent human habitation, just by way of example, not limitation.
I feel sorry for those too young to have experienced that golden age firsthand. It is now to a large extent finished, as evidenced by threads such as this.
If there really was a "golden age," I think it was between 1945 and 1960, or so. During this time, transit systems were still a viable option for transportation, although most had been converted to use less-efficient buses. Cities hadn't really started to fall into decay, yet. So, there were still many more choices available for anyone who didn't want to live a car-dependent lifestyle. I believe most urbanists are trying to bring choice back.
What "golden age" are you referring to? One doesn't have to live in areas like "sardines" to not have a need for a car for every trip they make out of their house. How much of that golden age was spent sitting in your car trying to get to places because nothing was within walking distance?
Being confined to a car for periods a day is quite a limitation. Then of course that car costs money, so just going to work a portion of your pay goes to the upkeep of the car.
"...sitting in your car..." as if that were somehow bad. On the contrary, driving itself is inherently fun.
Sure a car costs money. But it is well worth it. Having indoor plumbing costs money too.
If there really was a "golden age," I think it was between 1945 and 1960, or so. During this time, transit systems were still a viable option for transportation, although most had been converted to use less-efficient buses. Cities hadn't really started to fall into decay, yet. So, there were still many more choices available for anyone who didn't want to live a car-dependent lifestyle. I believe most urbanists are trying to bring choice back.
Yes, that's when I was growing up - between 1945 and 1960 or so. (I graduated from high school in 1962). I knew only ONE family that didn't have a car. Not wanting to live a car-dependent lifestyle was just about unheard of. Having a car was just normal, like having indoor plumbing was normal. It was the good life.
My father used public busses most of the time to get to work so that our mother could have the car available to her at home. There is nothing wrong with using transit, and the fact that he used transit a good deal of the time does not mean that there is some negative which attaches to car ownership. We had a car, just like almost everybody else; out life would have been much more restricted without it.
"...sitting in your car..." as if that were somehow bad. On the contrary, driving itself is inherently fun.
Sure a car costs money. But it is well worth it. Having indoor plumbing costs money too.
For you maybe, but I wouldn't consider driving to be inherently fun, especially when one is sitting in traffic wasting their time trying to get to places in car centric places. The term "road rage" comes from those that weren't having any fun driving.
Now commuting on my bike is a lot of fun and great exercise, something I can't get from sitting in a car for that same period of time.
The cost of owning a car is roughly $7-8K a year, that is a huge chunk of change taken out of your pay for one vehicle. I live in a walkable community with my wife, we own one car and both work, the money we save by only having one car lets us take trips anywhere in the world if we want to. I don't know about you, but the cost of that car isn't worth the limitations it creates.
Yes, that's when I was growing up - between 1945 and 1960 or so. (I graduated from high school in 1962). I knew only ONE family that didn't have a car. Not wanting to live a car-dependent lifestyle was just about unheard of. Having a car was just normal, like having indoor plumbing was normal. It was the good life.
My father used public busses most of the time to get to work so that our mother could have the car available to her at home. There is nothing wrong with using transit, and the fact that he used transit a good deal of the time does not mean that there is some negative which attaches to car ownership. We had a car, just like almost everybody else; out life would have been much more restricted without it.
Now you are contradicting yourself, this sounds like you are saying it is good for there to be options with commuting so that one isn't car dependent, but your other posts seem to advocate car dependency. Maybe I am not understanding what you are trying to say clearly. Hopefully you can better explain what you mean.
Yes, that's when I was growing up - between 1945 and 1960 or so. (I graduated from high school in 1962). I knew only ONE family that didn't have a car. Not wanting to live a car-dependent lifestyle was just about unheard of. Having a car was just normal, like having indoor plumbing was normal. It was the good life.
At this point I know almost no one without a car. There's a couple people living in San Francisco I know that don't one a car... but they regularly use Lyft/Uber and ZipCar. I use them as well when I sometimes need to get from place to place, but that's because who wants to drive in San Francisco? Option A pay someone $15 and get there in 10 minutes dropped off at the door. Option B take transit which takes 45 minutes. Option C walk to your car parked farther away than the transit stop, pay the $10 you owe for parking for half an hour, drive, spend 15 minutes driving around in circles looking for a parking garage that isn't full that will cost you $30...
San Francisco is the opposite. The good life is paying someone to drive you around.
At this point I know almost no one without a car. There's a couple people living in San Francisco I know that don't one a car... but they regularly use Lyft/Uber and ZipCar. I use them as well when I sometimes need to get from place to place, but that's because who wants to drive in San Francisco? Option A pay someone $15 and get there in 10 minutes dropped off at the door. Option B take transit which takes 45 minutes. Option C walk to your car parked farther away than the transit stop, pay the $10 you owe for parking for half an hour, drive, spend 15 minutes driving around in circles looking for a parking garage that isn't full that will cost you $30...
San Francisco is the opposite. The good life is paying someone to drive you around.
That made me laugh because it is so true in SF, it is such a small city (land wise) but the transit there isn't anywhere near where it should be for a city that size in population, and with the hills it makes it rough to walk from neighborhood to neighborhood, but it is nice and easy having someone else drive you from place to place.
For you maybe, but I wouldn't consider driving to be inherently fun, especially when one is sitting in traffic wasting their time trying to get to places in car centric places. The term "road rage" comes from those that weren't having any fun driving.
Now commuting on my bike is a lot of fun and great exercise, something I can't get from sitting in a car for that same period of time.
The cost of owning a car is roughly $7-8K a year, that is a huge chunk of change taken out of your pay for one vehicle. I live in a walkable community with my wife, we own one car and both work, the money we save by only having one car lets us take trips anywhere in the world if we want to. I don't know about you, but the cost of that car isn't worth the limitations it creates.
Nothing new about owning one car. Lots of families do that. It is just limiting when wife and husband both need to be somewhere like work at the same time.(then in your case you are limited to hours public transit can run or distance bike can go and forget biking in snow.) Get back to me when you try having kids and no car.
The cost of owning a car is roughly $7-8K a year, that is a huge chunk of change taken out of your pay for one vehicle.
The calculators that assume that assume you're buying a new vehicle every five years and financing the entire purchase price at some outrageous rate of interest. There are many ways to make a car cost less than that.
I saw gas here in CO today for $2.91/gal. So much for these predictions for the last 7 years I've been on CD that it will be going up to $5+/gal some time soon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
