[spodek]

How did the author miss the point of cars so much?

> One common explanation for the decline of urban and neighborhood beauty is the rise of the automobile, which makes it harder to develop such places. Surely cars and traffic can ruin many an attractive scene. Still, this is not even close to a full answer. For one thing, there are autos all over Paris, so at least in principle it ought to be possible to build in ways that are both highly attractive and allow for cars.

The problem with cars isn't how they look, it's how they lead to communities where people don't share space, can't walk from place to place, encapsulate once open spaces, and separate everyone. Plus they pollute and kill people. In cities built before cars, like Paris, people share space and interact. You can walk to the produce vendor, tailor, etc without parking in giant lots around box stores.

Airplanes repeat the pattern on a national scale.

[nightski]

In the suburban neighborhoods built around cars I live by there are still many people walking around, kids playing and riding bikes, people growing gardens, lots of trees, and lots of friendly neighbors. Also if you choose to live in a smaller city (say < 500k?) the air quality can be quite fantastic. The quality of suburban life imo is a lot better than what people on HN tend to make it out to be. HN is rather hyperbolic.

[adolph]

> where people don't share space … Airplanes repeat the pattern

What do you mean? The person ahead of me on airplanes shares my lap space on the regular.