Comment by wolvoleo
19 hours ago
In America maybe. Here in Europe it's not really viewed as a birthright like that. And don't forget, America artificially created a dependency on the car with its city design, for economic reasons.
And no I don't think anything corporate-owned is the answer, as corporations are the main reason we're in this mess.
But like I said it is my personal opinion. The challenges we face as humanity, like pollution (not just global warming), and infinite growth can't be solved without some big changes. Quick fixes just won't do it which is why we're not actually solving anything.
I don't think it will happen though. There's too many vested interest in just burning the world until it's gone.
> Here in Europe it's not really viewed as a birthright like that.
I have never left Europe in my life, and I can with certainty say that this is wrong.
We do have a bunch of city-dwelling people that can do without, yes, but once you leave those perspective-skewing places, there is no way to pleasantly exist without some sort of car.
That said, I agree that more could be done without them, and I think that eBikes are doing a ton of work there to enable people to use the one car they have to own less. If only they weren't by now priced like actual cars..
__
Also bonuspoints for not doing the dumb thing and buying a special-purpose-only cargo bike but the smart thing of owning a regular eBike, a trailer hitch and a bike trailer. You can get so much done with a bike trailer.
If you're in europe, go check out hinterher.com. Great stuff
> Also bonuspoints for not doing the dumb thing and buying a special-purpose-only cargo bike but the smart thing of owning a regular eBike, a trailer hitch and a bike trailer. You can get so much done with a bike trailer.
Cargo bikes are great for kids. I would be far too terrified to put them in one of those trailers.
That's also what the LLM said when I stress-tested my comment, but I grew up seeing many kids being driven around in fairly safe looking trailers, so I'm not 100% sure if that holds up.
I mean, psychologically, you're completely right. But realistically, a trailer is probably fine - as long as you understand object permanence and drive safe and like there's your kid behind you.
Europe is a big place. For example, if you are a farmer living in Finnish countryside, good luck surviving without a personal car. Lots of city folks also have relatives or summer cottages in the countryside, and own some cheap car just to reach them. And for families living in smaller cities, the public transport system is often inadequate, in rural areas it's non-existent.
I don't drive much, but the little I do improves my quality of life significantly. Personal cars shouldn't disappear, but cities should be designed to minimize need for them, and public transport systems should be improved. Those of us who need a car to reach rural locations still should be able to own one. Taxation should focus on car usage, not ownership, and tax usage more in cities than in areas where cars are more necessary. Owning a car is not inherently worse than any other form of ownership.
> America artificially created a dependency on the car with its city design, for economic reasons.
That's nonsense. Most American cities were built after automobiles were already a thing, that's why our cities are designed around automobile transportation. Many European cities are much older than cars, of course they were laid out based on the transportation of the day.
And I don't get your dig at the end related to American city design being some for economic reasons. What city wasn't design in part for economic reasons? Homes, businesses, roads, etc are always positioned in a city in part based on economic impact and value.
American cities are better for the general public anyway. Would you personally choose to spend over half your pay renting an expensive micro apartment in the middle of the city, or drive a 30-60 min commute to your big house on cheap land in the suburbs? Europeans don't get that choice, since land is so scarce.
You'd really have to define "better" there.
I'm American and also spent a few years living in Europe. I actually much preferred the smaller homes and more walkable cities in Europe, I don't need a McMansion to feel happy.
We moved back primarily because immigration laws are always tricky, our families were still in the US, and I didn't want to watch Russia invade Ukraine from a front row seat. If the decision were only about cost and lifestyle of home and city design we would still be in Europe.
1 reply →
I live in Canada (Toronto) and choose to live and raise my family downtown. We bought a multi-bedroom condo in a slightly older building (better layout and larger size than more modern buildings). My child walks to school and we socialize with the parents during dropoff, is constantly meeting the neighbourhood kids in the public parks, and my commute is a 15 minute walk. We are also within walking distance to all the amenities the city has to offer (aquarium/museums, shops, etc). I sometimes think we live in Sesame Street w/o the muppets; my 8 year old runs the cash register for me at several stores we shop at because the owners know us so well.
Any "savings" I would have moving to the suburbs would be cancelled out by the thousands in commuting costs (I'd have to buy, maintain and insure a car, which I only now use car sharing and the occasional old school rental). All being equal, a larger home would be nice, but then I'd be in a position where I go out less.
I'm not saying urban life is for everybody, but you make it sound like a choice between dystopia and utopia (it was awful during the height of COVID, though). The fact that the American cities that are closest to the urban ideal are so expensive does signal that people would like to live like that, but for very various reasons (ranging from zoning to historical gov't mortgage insurance only applying to houses) has not been expanded much elsewhere.
1 reply →
It's really a personal choice. I would definitely choose the city apartment, as long as I can afford to not have a car I'll choose that, at least for now. Can't fathom the idea of having to drive to the office/city centre/shops when I can just walk.
> Europeans don't get that choice, since land is so scarce
don't think that's true, there's plenty of satellite towns and rural areas around every city
1 reply →
> Europeans don't get that choice
We absolutely, 100% do. Not everywhere, just like it isn't universally true in the US, but it definitely is a choice that many in Europe have. We just aren't chained to a car even in this case, public transport is still great even if you don't live in the city center.
2 replies →
I'd take the short commute for sure. I'd rather not waste so much of my life trapped in a metal box that is statistically one of the most likely things to accidentally seriously injure or kill me. And its not like I'm overly afraid of cars or whatever; cars have been a long hobby of mine and I ride motorcycles recreationally, but its very different than being forced to sit in traffic commuting. Time is the one thing I can't just make more of. Hours wasted commuting is hours I can't spend with my family or do my hobbies, especially if the commute is driving alone.
In a lot of metro areas, its not like that mortgage on a "big house on cheap land" is really that much cheaper than the smaller apartment further into the city. And these days that cheap "big house" is often a small near zero lot line house far away from anything interesting.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1108-Ginsburg-Ln-Princeto...
Oooh wow yeah I can get a house way out in the sticks. It'll take me an hour to get to any real job opportunities, entirely dependent on my car. Sure, there's no real city amenities anywhere around, but hey you've got that tiny little backyard for all those activities! Sure, there's no city pools, there's no city parks, there's no sports complexes (unless you're in high school), there are no theaters, there is barely a library, there isn't really public green spaces but hey you've got a few square feet of Bermuda grass to mow. All for probably a little over $2k a month. Quite an affordable utopia.
I'd much rather live in a place with city parks, with municipal recreation centers, with good public libraries, close to actual job opportunities, lots of choices of cuisines when I choose to eat out, access to transit opportunities to get around the larger metro areas in multiple ways, etc. Its more expensive, and I won't be able to afford as much square footage, but hey having actually functional bike trails and sports leagues to participate in and not having to drive for hours to catch a sports team I like to see or catch a show in a theater sure beats just being alone in a cheap box with an empty small yard way away from anything fun to do outside of the home.
I've only had one long commute in my life, and I carpooled so I wasn't even the one driving it. It sucked wasting so much time shuffling around in the car in traffic. I don't think I'll ever willfully choose it. I get that's just my opinion though, and some people do prefer being way out in the middle of nowhere. But to me and seeing what it actually is these days, it doesn't seem like the utopia people paint it as. But hey, I live in what was "way out there with nothing around" in the past. Things do change and evolve.
2 replies →