[throwawaysea]

I often see urbanists and young people fantasize about life in car free mega cities. Having lived that life for years I can’t imagine why. A lot of cities that are beautiful and attractive also have room for cars. I would even argue it is a big part of what makes those cities attractive. There’s no substitute for the point to point on demand fast transportation that cars offer. In cities that aren’t overbuilt, it makes it so much easier to get things done, see people, and access the outdoors. All that time saved is time to live a richer life.

A good example of a car centric city that is very attractive is Seattle from ten years ago. The city had a strong sense of community because it was composed of intimate neighborhoods mostly with single family zoning rather than mid rise boxy apartment blocks everywhere, ample green space for its population, and roads with little traffic. It is because Seattle was so attractive that people and businesses flocked to it. Now those aspects are going away as density, anti car policies, and other issues are making the overall quality of life worse.

[ben-schaaf]

> There’s no substitute for the point to point on demand fast transportation that cars offer.

If you design cities to not have alternatives to cars then of course there's no substitute. All my day-to-day trips are currently faster using a bike+train, significantly less stressful, cheaper and also much healthier. People don't generally prefer specific modes of transportation, they just want to travel quickly and conveniently. That can be achieved with any mode of transportation, yet cars are the most expensive, most polluting, loudest, lowest density and most stressful.

I just took a look at a picture of Seattle from 2011 and it looks like half the area is dedicated to car parking with huge stroads everywhere. Having to take a car to go to the shops 300m away sounds like a total nightmare. And it's not even the suburbs! If those roads had little traffic on them then that was clearly just due to the population not having caught up. Once it did of course those roads weren't going to be enough. At that point you can either bulldoze more of the city for the car and still get awful traffic or provide better alternatives...

For reference this is the photo I found: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Downtown...

[kspacewalk2]

"Car free" is a straw man that's easy to argue against, and misses the point. Rather, most urbanists call for cities that are fair to all who inhabit it, regardless of whether they are currently inside of a car. A bus that carries 50 ought to have priority over several cars that carry 1 apiece. Neighbourhoods should not be artificially embalmed in time by excessive zoning rules to only allow car-dependent architecture. People who live in a city should have an actual choice in terms of what density and transportation mode is best for them. (That definitely includes single family homes and cars). That'll obviously be different from person to person, and even more obviously that'll change over one's lifetime. So make a city liveable and navigable and interesting for those who are 8, 80 and everything in between. Make that the goal, and you'll be heading in the right direction.

[jppope]

> "There’s no substitute for the point to point on demand fast transportation that cars offer."

Very few American cities actually offers FAST point to point transit via automobiles. 50 years ago, it was probably realistic, but now automobile traffic in most American cities makes quick transportation anywhere unrealistic.

[blitzar]

Average speed in central london is 7mph.

To be fair, cars are on demand, unlike tube where waiting times can reach an outrageous 5 minutes.

[rsj_hn]

But central London is a tiny portion of London, and the slow speeds are very common for busy downtown areas of large cities. Despite excellent public transportation, 54% of London households own at least one car - not too much different from the number for Newark, NJ (60%).

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-many-cars-a...

[blitzar]

The London orbital motorway the M25, definately not central London, with its majestic 12 lane sections boasts an average speed of 25mph.

[thex10]

> I often see urbanists and young people fantasize about life in car free mega cities. Having lived that life for years I can’t imagine why.

I for one simply don't want to pay the to own and maintain a car, preferring instead to rent one or purchase a ride (via taxi or rideshare etc) as needed.

[milkytron]

Same here. I would only put maybe 2000 miles on a car per year. Insurance + maintenance alone would be more than I'd pay for a rental/rideshare every now and then.

[jltsiren]

Most of the complaints against density are really against medium-density cities. Those combine the worst of both worlds. They don't have enough room for cars if most people drive, but far too many people have to drive because there are not enough people to support decent public transport on most routes. Once population density starts approaching something like 10k / square km (25k / square mile) over large enough areas, urban life becomes much more attractive.

I've never been to Seattle, but it looks like a medium-density city on the map.

[Animats]

I often see urbanists and young people fantasize about life in car free mega cities.

Yes.

Now go look at Peter Cooper Village in NYC.[1]

"The complex is designed as two large "superblocks", independent of the grid system that characterizes the majority of Manhattan below 155th Street.It consists of two large parks, one for each part of the complex, juxtaposed with modern red brick apartment towers."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_Town%E2%80%93Peter_...

[bombcar]

Even famously “mass transit unfriendly” cities can be fit for a car-free lifestyle if you work at it.

But I suspect a huge part of it is visiting Europe or Asia as a tourist and enjoying being without a car.

But they didn’t actually live there.

[NumberWangMan]

For one data point: I lived in London without a car for several years, and enjoyed it. A lot of people do. One big thing you give up in car-dependent areas is interesting walks. Everything is super-sized to accommodate vehicles, and at a human scale, it's boring. In an older city designed for people, every 10 feet there's something new to catch your eye.

There are tradeoffs, but I much preferred being able to take the train or bus and relax and zone out rather than have spend the entire trip in the vigilant state you need while driving. And while cycling, yes, you have to be vigilant, but you're getting exercise too.

I'm at a point in my life where, I probably don't want to live in the big city as much. (Funnily enough, when I was much younger I never thought I would want to.) But anyway, I'd still much prefer to live in a denser, more walkable suburb, which tend to be unfortunately hard to find and expensive in the US for reasons that are probably already all discussed in comments in this thread.

[BurningFrog]

> I suspect a huge part of it is visiting Europe or Asia as a tourist and enjoying being without a car.

Agreed.

As a tourist you also tend to visit the historic center of capital cities, which have by far the best public transport and fanciest architecture.

Plus you're on vacation and having fun.

When you live there and walk to your commuter train a gray november morning, it's a very different experience.

[NumberWangMan]

> When you live there and walk to your commuter train a gray november morning, it's a very different experience.

Still preferable, to me at least! Getting in to work and shucking off your mist-covered coat and making a nice cup of tea made it just fine.

[schrijver]

Having taken commuter trains on gray November Euro-mornings, I still prefer them to cars for commuting. Sitting in a traffic jam on a gray November Euro-morning is more depressing to me. But you’re right, I live in the center of a city. I can get by without a car just fine. On the country side this is not really an option. Whether the suburbs are well connected depends on where you are. In the end, plenty of people still commute by car, it’s just that there’s a sizeable proportion that doesn’t and it changes the feel of public space (and your own sense of options).

[Macha]

> But I suspect a huge part of it is visiting Europe or Asia as a tourist and enjoying being without a car.

I live in Dublin. I'd rank it as pretty middling in transport by European standards. We have a decent bus network, commuter rail to the suburbs, trams that are frequent but overcrowded at rush hour, and intercity trains to the other cities in the country.

I've been here nearly a decade and have no great rush to buy a car. And there's still obvious improvement to be made. The red line needs a relief line unless work from home makes the expanse of new offices at the end of the line mostly empty, cycling lane coverage is spotty and often conflicting with buses or parking, and bike parking is lacking.

[BrianHenryIE]

> Even famously “mass transit unfriendly” cities can be fit for a car-free lifestyle if you work at it.

I think it's such a pervasive meme that the US is bad for transit that people don't even try. I don't ever use cars (like twice in 450 days) AND I live beside one of the major transport hubs in my city (65/Folsom in Sacramento), yet I don't know where or when buses could bring me.

There is a dearth in communication.

I was in Orlando last week and the buses were great, and empty.

[0x0nyandesu]

Even my relatives in Germany who live in a very public transport friendly city still own two cars.