Hacker News Reader

Comment by stickfigure | Hacker News Reader

Most people don't live in urban centers. Unless you plan on dismantling the suburbs, we're stuck with cars of one form or another.

Taxis, driverless or otherwise, are "public transport".

View on HN

It depends on how you define “urban.” The way the census defines it, less than 20% of the US population is non-urban.

For the sake of discussion here urban means not dependent on car for majority of errands.

By that definition, a place like Houston or Detroit-metro is probably non-rural

I specifically mentioned urban centers - the places easily reached by mass transit. Even in dense cities, many neighborhoods are far enough away from mass transit lines that smaller vehicles are required. Taxis would be a better option than zillions of privately owned cars, and self-driving would make it economical.

Is there a codified definition of urban center? Because it’s not a term used by the census definitions; they define urban area.

If your define non-urban center as one far from mass transit to defend the need for cars, it becomes circular logic. It’s probably better to refer to more official definitions, which already reference population density.

I guess it depends on how you define urban (are suburbs still urban?). I think you're kind of right in that currently suburbs are terrible to live in without a car. But if there was magically a huge shift to much better public transport - would that still be the case?

Most of the world is more urban than not: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/urban-vs-rural-majority

When those suburbs are within the city limits of large cities, yes absolutely they should be dismantled and densified. There's no justification for using government power to create a housing cartel during a housing shortage.

Further, mixed use development like corner stores, restaurants, and grocery stores where people live will eliminate a large fraction of vehicle trips entirely.

Simply ending exclusive zoning would do wonders for American towns.

> dismantled and densified

Contradiction error. Does not parse.

Did you think people wanted to bulldoze suburbs and not replace them with anything? What did you think was meant by dismantle? I always assumed it meant dismantling the rules that prevent the very natural market-driven densification process.

Suburbs as they exist in the US do not exist because they are the best X for any X that exists; but because of top-down central planning. Remove those rules, and the apartments all but build themselves.

I don't think anyone wants their house bulldozed, and the way you phrase it is kind of horrifying. Sure, let's dismantle zoning regimes and let development happen organically. Suburbs may get a few more services but this isn't going to magically make the need for cars disappear.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com