Hacker News Reader

Comment by ta1234567890 | Hacker News Reader

Maybe you mean American corporations and people in power love space and their cars and the money they make off of selling and developing those things?

For example, LA used to have a great train network for public transportation until the automobile industry made sure to tear it down so people would be forced to drive cars.

In SF/BayArea people want zoning to change so there can be more housing/apartment buildings. Who's blocking that from happening? Homeowners who think that would devalue their properties.

Also, doesn't seem like people in NYC value cars or yards that much (at least not over living in NYC).

View on HN

"America" doesn't consist of LA, NYC, and SF. There are a lot of people even in those places that don't want density but choose the environment because there are jobs, and there are jobs because so few people are willing to leave. (catch 22)

It's true that America isn't only New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, but those three areas do make up over 10% of the population, which is nothing to sneeze at.

While that is true, LA makes up a big portion of that "over 10%" hardly anyone in LA lives in anything remotely like high-density housing or lives there for much beyond the fantastic weather and job opportunities. Also, you don't do anything to address the parent comments point that plenty of people who live in higher-density areas would prefer to move to somewhere more rural, but can't because of life.

100% of the my friends and family who live in New York would live nowhere else in the country in spite of the extreme costs of living in Manhattan, when they could have equal incomes elsewhere.

I know it's hard for you to believe, but some people like living in high density areas.

I understand that. But at the same time I know plenty of people who live in SF who would love to move to a more rural area, but they or their spouse can't find work in their field outside of metro areas and SF is close to their rural roots. Some people don't like living in high density areas, but find themselves their out of circumstance.

Hundreds of thousands of people live in high density areas of Los Angeles with densities far exceeding San Francisco's most dense areas. Also people live in LA for the same reason they live in other big cities, because it's incredibly diverse and vibrant. Traffic may be bad, but most people aren't in transit for that long anyways since the city is still pretty dense, and you can get everything you need within your neighborhood (where many neighborhoods are totally walkable).

but (hundreds of thousands[living in high density LA]) + (hundereds of thousands [living in high density SF]) + 8 million (living in NYC) =/= 10% * 350 million.

In fact, if we generously estimate that 10 million people live in high density metro areas that don't rely on cars we are looking at less than 3% of the US population. I think that is something to sneeze at.

LA is almost entirely car-focused.

SF only has a population of one million.

Basically the US has NYC and parts of Chicago as emblems of urban density.

The US has over 200 zip codes with a population density of 20k/sqmile. While 20k/sqmile isn't an 'emblem of urban density' it does show there are several locations a person that enjoys high density can live in.

I know it’s because it’s HN, but SF is just not that big of a city to be included with the other two. Maybe include Houston, Philadelphia, or Phoenix. SF isn’t even in the top ten.

The San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Combined Statistical Area is estimated at 8.8 million, putting it fifth, after Greater NYC, Greater LA, Greater Chicago, and the Washington DC metro area including Baltimore. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area

No living in the country is actually not a vast alt-right conspiracy.

Well, not alt right...

De-urbanization was spurred by housing shortages post-WW2 and federal policy seeking to stabilize the housing market. The FHA was created to insure home loans that met a long list of requirements[1], which had biases towards increasing consumption (including cars) and racial segregation. The marketing and growth of suburbia was then promoted by various business interests that would benefit from that increased consumption[2]. The new suburban lifestyle led to the rise of modern conservatism[3]. Most (~85% [3]) of the US lives in metropolitan areas, so rural lifestyles are not typical and it would be vastly less efficient if everyone lived there rather than in cities.

1: https://marketurbanism.com/2017/09/12/financing-suburbia-how...

2: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/...

3: http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/97...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com