I thought a generation of remote work would change attitudes about cities. Why are we still trying to cram into small spaces?
Probably 20 restaurants, 20 small shops, coffee shops, ups, usps, fedex, hardware stores, museums, parks etc etc all within 10 minutes walk.
It’s nice not having to drive for everyday errands. driving and parking is soul draining and causes suburbs to be ugly, not to mention freeways. Those are ugly as sin.
Having space for your hobbies is nice so if your priority is hobbies that need space living out of the city is nice. If your priority is going out for things it is probably better to live in the city.
That should be up to individuals, not central planners.
Are you sure you live in a suburb?
I was born, raised, lived in many, and will likely die in a city - but I just wanted to chime in to say that not all suburbs are awful.
Walkable suburbs in the US are by far the exception. They are great though!
It’s really nice not to share walls with 4 different neighbors and be able to have a yard and let your kids play outside your house.
Residential density is worse in every way for most of the population.
Actually nearby it’s the street with more car traffic that has the most empty store fronts because everyone hates walking on it.
The main issue with the walkable cities is the housing is expensive.
The reason for that is demand exceeds supply. People love the cities judging by the absurd house prices in them. It’s just that we don’t have enough of them.
A main reason for that is single family zoning and parking minimums.
And even then you might be quite restricted as similar stores seem to clump together.
And stores of a kind clumping together is a suburban phenomenon, not an urban one. You're not usually going to find two hardware stores next to each other in a big city, or two UPS stores. Even fast food, which is almost always "clumped" in the suburbs, gets pretty evenly distributed in cities. A McDonald's will just be on a random corner, not as part of a row next to Burger King and KFC.
I have all of that (except the museum) within 10 minutes walk in a very suburban (almost rural, but still suburb) area.
This myth that you must live in the densest cities (Manhattan or SF) to be able to walk to shops, restaurants and other daily useful things is just a myth.
It might be "nice", but it's not possible without a very restricted definition of "every amenity" and even then there's an assumption that amenities are fungible and you're ignoring efficiency.
If there's a grocery store every five minute walk, it's relatively small, which means that it has a crap selection AND it's expensive to run because it doesn't have any economies of scale. (Compare NYC's bodegas with even a crap Walmart and god help you if you're not the dominant community near your bodega.)
The number of places to eat/drink within a five minute walk is limited and/or they're tiny. Again, crap selection and no economies of scale.
Then consider our musician friends. Do you really think that NYC supports enough instrument stores to have one, let alone a good one, every five minute walk? (Remember, you need guitars, flutes, pianos, etc.)
And, musicians aren't special here - the same is true of any interest, such as books.
A 10min walk/transit window can span 20-40 city blocks depending on the location and transit options.
All of your assertions are plain wrong.
Move those goal posts. The original claim was "easy walking distance I.e 5-10 minutes walk."
> can span 20-40 city blocks
20 NYC blocks is a mile, which is 20 minutes walking.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/average-walking-sp...
> convenient (but high costs) parts of Manhattan.
If it's so efficient and/or desirable, why only a fraction of NYC?
The answer is that those areas are a luxury good, with, as you put it, "high cost".
Note that the streets, which is the whole of "planning for autos", don't have any effect on what's in the streetfronts. And, since the high cost areas were also "planned for autos" ...
You are misinformed. It is only part of NYC and rare in other cities across the US because of the planning which generally supports cars, including rules like the article, parking minimums. That makes it a luxury good. Build more walkable areas then it won't be a luxury anymore.
More seriously though I do think there are benefits to city living if that's a lifestyle you want, but saving money is almost never one of them unless you have a job where you can make a LOT more living in the city, which sort of by definition means you're not going to be working remotely.
You haven't specified where you live, but from the details you've written, we can narrow it down far enough to safely conclude that you're not living in a place that's designed to support a car-free lifestyle.
I have lived for over fifteen years without a car. Not only do I not miss it, but I'd pay to be able to live like this. I can rent a car whenever I need it (something like once or twice a year) and the total annual cost is a fraction of what a monthly car payment would be almost anywhere in the country: gas, financing, repairs, fees, other expenses, etc. all add up to way more than people realize[0].
When you're living in a place that's designed with cars in mind, it's hard to imagine living comfortably without it, but when you're living in a place that's designed for other means of transportation, it's hard to imagine ever going back to cars.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/10/07/business/car-...
Being born in a place is a lottery with random chance deciding the rules for you. Sure, as an adult, you can potentially choose to leave for the less green pasture and live in an urban environment of city designed for other means of transpo if you're one that doesn't mind moving away from their entire familial support structure. Not say it can't be done, but people just assume these decisions are something people are willing to make just because they did. It's nonsensical.
Nobody in this subthread is saying anything to that effect. This thread was prompted by someone asking why anyone would want to live in a [car-free] urban environment in the first place. The ability to do so is implied by the question, not something being prescribed by edict.
I think this is obviously the crux of the issue. It depends on what you do and what your love. I would be renting a car/truck 2-3x a week based on my interests and passions.
I would like not having to drive to work, but would rather give up those 1.5 hours a day than everything else my vehicle lets me do.
that said, i support letting people chose for themselves.
Do you have on-demand car sharing in your city? Like Zipcar or similar? You could go on a heck of a lot of hardware store trips in one of these cars for the price of a car payment + parking + insurance + taxes + maintenance.
I think you're replying to the wrong person. I do use Zipcar on the rare occasion that I need a car. It's way cheaper than car ownership (not even including parking).
I love how those not wanting the city life is just looked down upon by those that are. But that's okay, I think those that live in the city are kind of just weird for similarly petty things
I've lived in a high-rise in a city and on acres in a rural area. I vastly prefer the latter. Right now, I live on about 1/5 acre in the edge of a proper city, which is a pretty good compromise to get the kids what will benefit them and still have some space and not have neighbors right up my ass every time I turn around.
[0] https://www.redfin.com/MN/Minneapolis/1235-Yale-Pl-55403/uni...
[1] https://www.redfin.com/MN/Minneapolis/1920-S-1st-St-55454/un...
[2] https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/222-2nd-St...
[3] https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/100-3rd-Av...
[4] https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1420-E-Pine-St-UNIT-E310-...
Okay, so there are 10 buildings (out of several thousand) with woodworking in Minneapolis, but how many of them also support what my spouse likes to do?
This is a case where you don't want it in the building, which gets us to the "there's not enough space within a 5 minute walk for a wide range of `want to do's."
And if this was true, why would it have to be? We shouldn't lock ourselves into that kind of world. There's no reason that people shouldn't be able to have access to workspaces just because they don't want to live in unsustainable car centric areas.
I love having a car. It gives me freedom and flexibility. It enables me to do the hobbies I like. It even gives me more career options and a broader range of housing options.
You must have one of those magical cars that runs on air, never needs to be filled up, never needs to be taxed, never needs to be insured and never breaks down. Wish I could have one of those cars.
In the meantime I’ll settle for using my feet and my bike. Never needed to fill them up with fuel, pay insurance, or tax. And my feet, at least, have never broken down.
All these numbers are from 2019.
Without car we pay about 300 euros per month for all transport needs, an extra 100 euros per month are direct subsidies. I would guess we would pay at least 800 euros per month for a car, probably more.
Try $1000/mo on average:
* https://money.com/owning-new-car-cost-total-2023/
If you're making >$100K that may not sound like that much, but the average/median US salary is lower.
(That probably doesn't include externalities either: health, climate change, commute times when you do have to go into the office, etc.)
Cars can be convenient, but it'd be better if they were option for living your life rather than a necessity.
And even using the $1k/mo number, you're still paying thousands more in rent to save that.
The average monthly payment for a used car is $500/mo, and $700/mo for a new car:
* https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/average-...
Then add maintenance, insurance, depreciation, fuel. And that's just the stuff that shows up on a spreadsheet (of which depreciation most folks don't really think about).
Your balance sheet would factor in only your interest payments and depreciation, the principal on your loan is irrelevant there because it's being realized as equity.
The average monthly payment for a used car being $500 does not mean that somebody on a low income has to pay $500 to own a car. I'd imagine that the average price paid for a cup of coffee is around $5, but that doesn't mean that that's what coffe costs. It just means that a lot of people pay way more than neccessary for coffee. Similarly- lots of people drive cars that are bigger, faster, newer, more luxurious, and more capable then necessary.
The bare minimum cost to own a vehicle is not $500 a month by any means- my 5000 dollar car has lasted me 6 years now as an example. Even if we consider it is now worth half of it's original value, that comes in at about $70 a month in depreciation. Hardly unaffordable
Somehow poor people can afford these cars that cost way more than they make.
Average isn't a very interesting number here. I know a guy with a $15K/month car payment, I'm sure people like him push the average up.
If you're trying to save money, don't go for average. Buy a cheap used car, ideally in cash, and your operating costs will be minimal.
The sky is the limit how much you can spend on a car if you wanted to splurge(waste), but you can also a fully functional car for very cheap if you care to save money.
You can also get higher payments with money down if you have no to low credit ratings. Been there, done that. You play the game using the online calculators that dealers provide on how much your payment can change based on credit score and down payment, and the credit score will dramatically change compared to the down payment.
> it'd be better if they were option for living your life rather than a necessity
I totally agree with that. I 100% support other people having the option to own or not own a car and accept the tradeoffs that result from their choice.
If you're rich and money is no object, do what makes you happy.
But if money is tight enough that you care about cost, it is very silly to look into an expensive new car. Buy an older efficient Honda/Mazda/Toyota for less than $10K, insurance will be cheaper, operating costs very low.
[1] https://newsroom.aaa.com/2023/08/annual-new-car-ownership-co...
The average vehicle on the road is 12 years old.
Define "small". Here are some examples houses in an urban area with front yards, back yards, and garages (attached to lanes):
* https://www.google.com/maps/place/150+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+...
* https://www.google.com/maps/place/70+Jackman+Ave+Toronto,+ON
A little less square footage:
* https://www.google.com/maps/place/125+Hampton+Ave,+Toronto,+...
* https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+O...
The Oh the Urbanity channel has a video on the (mistaken) idea that "urban living" = Manhattan / Hong Kong apartment blocks, which is certainly not the case:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCmz-fgp24E
Plenty of that was build pre-WW2 in ways that didn't depend on cars:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0&t=1m8s
Suburban design is the worst of both worlds: lacking the density of the urban so infrastructure is inefficient and so is transportation, and basically bulldozing what makes more rural living nice (closeness to nature).
Those are suburbs. There's a park even, and no highrises in sight based on streetview.
They want to visit friends, go to a museum, join a sports club, check out a book from the library, go shopping, visit a restaurant - there's way more of those in a city than in the countryside.
We've had about 3 years of (ubiquitous) remote work; that's nowhere near enough to call "a generation", nor to bring about a sea change in attitudes. Even then, this entire time there's been a steady chorus of voices admonishing us that if we think remote work is better, it's just because we're slacking off; we don't recognize the real, important benefits of ad-hoc in-person communication; this is just a fad that will end any day now. Aaaaany day now...
The “modern city” or at least the US’s version of a “modern city” is the first time humans have ever lived so far apart at such scale. Enabled only because the car has conditioned so many people to think that driving 30mins to get anywhere interesting is “normal” or “natural”.