The article mentions electric vehicles several times as a panacea for suburbanism, but I think a lot of people fail to realize just how _miserable_ owning and commuting in a car is. I spend half an hour every morning and evening alternating between white-knuckling the steering wheel on the freeway while fearing for my life and being stuck in traffic on some God-forsaken stroad[0]. My daily routine would be unimaginably more enjoyable if I could step out of my front door and simply walk to the places I need to go, or take (reliable) public transportation. Because the only affordable housing in my area is in single-family housing developments accessible only via the nearest freeway exit, walking would be suicide and there's not enough density for actual public transportation to be efficient/financially feasible.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/3/1/whats-a-stroad-and-why-does-it-matter" rel="nofollow">https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/3/1/whats-a-stroad-...</a>
I've started to drink the kool-aide watching YouTube channels like "Not Just Bikes". But then I start watching other YouTube channels like Veratsium, ElectricBoom, Xyla Fox, Physics Girl, and others where it's clear they live in large house (may or may not be the suburbs). This large house gives them room for the workshop, garage for machinery, etc.... space that I would not have living in the city. Maybe that's ok but it's hard to give up that dream
As a suburbanite I always look on in horrid fascination when this topic comes up on HN.<p>If I wanted to live in the city I would. I don’t want to bring these “urban values” to my neighborhood. I want to put all my groceries in the trunk of my minivan, not make 10 bike rides back and forth. I’m in my mid 40s and my knees can’t handle that.<p>I don’t want to step over puddles of vomit and hypodermic needles. I like my functioning police department. I have no interest in the way you live.
It can be valuable to take a step back sometimes and evaluate whether or not you’re strategy is appropriate for the army you have or the army you want. Yes, old world metropolitan areas are wonderful, but it’s not realistic to assume the US has the political will to build like that. A better strategy would be to figure out how to make suburbs work in a better, more efficient and convenient manner.
Great point that it's unlikely for the US to become significantly more urban such that public transportation takes over car reliance (although that would be great).<p>More walkable small cities/towns would be extremely welcome! I don't enjoy living where I can't walk for coffee and groceries. But I'd love a cheaper cost of living.
Since we have shown that a "work from home" model is an available model for a majority of white collar jobs, is there a reason why city planners and civil engineers can't do a better job of placing markets/small business centers within biking and walking distance of a radial area of a suburban center?<p>As far as driving is concerned, why not push for electric and end gas subsidies over a time period to allow for adjustment. Yes, I understand that we're in a desperate situation, but I also understand that too much change too quickly tends to have the opposite effect of what the original intention was in the first place.<p>By setting up small, suburban "communities" that have many of their shopping needs met (a grocery, an open air market, a couple of whatever strip malls are called now, a school, an urgent care), proper bike paths and incentives on even plug in hybrids and work from home programs for jobs that didn't need to go into the office, we could focus on clean energy solutions for the grid - all of which are current technology and current lifestyles without much forced change, just rezoning and a continuation of what we learned during Cov19.
I agree with the premise that the suburbs won't be radically transformed ever, but I do expect them to be or remain compromises instead of the lifestyle dream they were sold as and failed as.<p>I will continue to pay a premium for space in a city (relative to the local population). I'd go as far to have a less comfortable shitty place in another part of the city just to be more relatable to some people.
Just on a superficial analysis it's clearly easier to increase the density of existing very suburban/exurban places than it would be to increase the density of nearby real urban centers. Think of suburbs that already have all the streets, highways, railroads, water and sewer they need. Think of a place like Orinda, CA. It could easily be ten times more populous in its existing boundaries and with infrastructure already built. It makes way more sense than trying to grow a city like Berkeley by the same factor. Berkeley could easily double, but there's no way it could be a city of a million people without ripping up and replacing a lot of expensive stuff.
It seems to me that several powerful entities are working right now to convince people to get rid of their gas-burners and buy electric cars.<p>That's quite a bit different than what the article describes (eliminating cars).<p>I think even the push to get people to move to electric cars is difficult enough. I'd love to have a fast electric car, but I know a lot of people that don't want one.
The suburbs are economically unsustainable. Nobody wants to pay to redo the roads and pipes, but everybody wants to live with a private backyard. Perhaps we should make it so that you have to make it self sustainable, dirt roads, septic tanks, wells, and producing your own electricity.