[stronglikedan]

The US is urbanized...if you want it. There are plenty of places where people that enjoy living in urban areas can do so. However, to me, that sounds like an unenjoyable hellscape. Been there, done that. The beauty of the US is that people have choices, and aren't pigeonholed into someone else's idea of "enjoyable".

[marssaxman]

There really are not plenty of places in the US where you can live a good, urban, non-car-oriented life, and you can tell that is true because the ones which do exist tend to be very expensive, showing that they are in high demand. You clearly do not desire an urban lifestyle, and I won't try to change your mind about that, but those of us who do want urban living generally don't find that our choices are either plentiful or affordable.

[dheera]

Not to mention safe urban areas. Most US urban areas are relatively high crime, and even if you don't encounter actual crime you are made to feel unsafe by a bunch of drug addicts in hoodies who yell racial slurs and other creepy dudes who approach you unsolicited, in contrast to urban areas of e.g. East Asia which tend to be extremely safe.

Boston is about the only city in the US that I feel mildly safe walking around the downtown at night.

[nerdkid93]

> relatively high crime

You mention crime in regards to safety within a city, but there is a study floating around Twitter that factors in traffic fatalities in suburban and rural areas, and the dangers of cars make suburbs and rural areas MORE dangerous that urban areas! Take a look at this article detailing urban vs rural deaths: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-in-rural-a...

[tekknik]

well that’s clearly flawed. i certainly don’t buy SF being safer than literally any rural area.

[trimethylpurine]

I think it's because urbanites keep getting suckered into letting builders do "condensed affordable housing" under the false premise that more housing means cheaper housing. Obviously that would only be true if the units were owned by competitors. Where one contractor owns all the units they set the prices, and they have no reason to make them "affordable." Just condensed.

[recursive]

> they have no reason to make them "affordable."

The money they make is {rent} × {units rented}. The reason they don't set rent to $1billion is that they will rent zero of them. I think this shows that they do have a reason to lower prices, at least at some range.

[trimethylpurine]

Sure so long as the assumption is that they aren't cheating. But apparently Congress thinks they are. Hence the lawsuits.

[trimethylpurine]

For the downvoters, nice of you to hope I'm wrong but unfortunately: https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-and-w...

Honestly who is downvoting this anyway? Do you work for big contractors or just like unaffordable housing as long as it's condensed? Evil much?

[marssaxman]

I did not downvote your comment but I certainly thought about it; between your contemptuous attitude toward people whose preferences differ from your own, and the way your ire over the scandal you're alluding to has blinded you to basic principles of economics, your remark added more noise than signal to the discussion.

[tekknik]

> between your contemptuous attitude toward people whose preferences differ from your own

it would be great if everybody on HN felt the same, unfortunately this is quite commonplace. read threads on any EV post for instance.

[trimethylpurine]

Which part of my commentary is contemptuous? I pointed out why I think housing is expensive in the city, based on my experience voting against it.

[trimethylpurine]

Well since you didn't answer, I'll give you my thoughts for your benefit. Reading back, I think you're projecting. I welcome you to reflect on your behavior as it well meets your own criticisms. Here are examples:

>contemptuous attitude toward people whose preferences differ from your own

I appear to be welcoming the dialogue, and as I read back, you appear to be downvoting to ensure others won't see the dialogue (downvoting prevents people from replying). This is worse than name calling. It's literally contemptuous. And worse, you're accusing me of your crime.

>and the way your ire over the scandal

I hope you can cite where I did that, otherwise this also is contemptuous. How would you know if I'm angry? Is it because you hear my words in your head in an angry voice? There's a rule about that on HN.

>blinded you to basic principles of economics

Me and Congress? It sounds like you might be missing something that Congress and I are aware of. Can you admit that or would that require you to have a better attitude toward people with a differing preference from your own?

>Remark added more noise than signal to the discussion

Is that because it doesn't align with your world view? If that's not why I'll be glad to consider your defense to this point. I hope it will include some honest reason for not wanting to hear other people's opinion, so much so that you would downvote them for sharing it.

Overall, the irony in just this one comment is largely incriminating in regard to HN rules, and in regard to your own aspirations of yourself, I would assume, given the strict expectations you've set out for me.

[mlsu]

This is entirely unrelated to the presence or lack of housing in urban areas.

If anything, a monopolistic landlord would like to expand and build more apartments, to extract a higher volume of above-market rent.

[trimethylpurine]

You appear to be paraphrasing me. Did you get a bunch of downvotes? Or was this not related to my comment?

[tekknik]

You shouldn’t worry about downvotes on HN, many here are biased and are looking for reconfirmation of their beliefs rather than discourse.

[adrianN]

Supply and demand would like to have a word with you.

[trimethylpurine]

Congress would like to have a word with contractors about "supply and demand."

https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-and-w...

[HEmanZ]

Do you have experience living in any variety of urban areas in first world countries outside of the US? Have you been to many cities in the US? I don’t think you can possibly have done either of these and still think the US has any urbanism. And literally all most moderate urbanists ask for is “please lower regulations so that the free market can build what some of us want and I can actually have a choice.”

[shiroiuma]

>Do you have experience living in any variety of urban areas in first world countries outside of the US?

The vast, vast majority of Americans have never even been outside the US (except maybe to Canada, and possibly Mexican tourist spots), let alone lived outside the US in a first-world country, and this includes the OP and most people on HN. It's why reading comments on urbanism on forums like this is both entertaining (because it's so wrong and US-centric) and depressing.

[sgu999]

> because it's so wrong and US-centric

I'm reading these threads from my walkable town in western Europe for the same reason ;D

[sebastos]

Most Americans on hackernews have never been outside of the US? That strikes me as a near impossibility. Evidence?

[jhbadger]

There are only 160 million US passports in circulation (out of a population of 330 million. So roughly half. Of course HN people tend to be middle class or higher so they'd more likely be in that 50%. But still, the US is huge (roughly the size of Europe (Europe is approximately 10,180,000 sq km, while United States is approximately 9,833,517 sq km). There's plenty of places to go in the US without needing to go elsewhere. And look at the tiny passport numbers in the 1990s! That's because before 9/11 you didn't need one to go to Canada or Mexico if you had other identification (like a driver's license) showing you were from the US. I've heard that you can still go to Canada that way if you drive rather than fly, but I haven't tried it.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/about-us/reports-...

[bluGill]

Until about 20 years ago you didn't need a passport to travel to Mexico or Canada. And passports only last 10 years so it is possible some have traveled outside the US in the past, but no longer have a passport.

[tekknik]

> There are only 160 million US passports in circulation (out of a population of 330 million. So roughly half

> vast, vast majority have never left the US

how does 1/2 of the population having a passport equate to the “vast, vast majority” having never traveled? How does this logic connect?

[tekknik]

> The vast, vast majority of Americans have never even been outside the US (except maybe to Canada, and possibly Mexican tourist spots)

That sounds made up on the spot, and borderline xenophobic. Data please.

[bertil]

The most common criticism I hear against cities is that they are loud. Cities aren't loud; cars are loud.

You experienced a bad compromise of having high density of a city and the high car ownership of suburbia. Like a "stroad," a road that is trying to be a street, it doesn't work.

Try to spend a week in a place with walkable density and no cars: Amsterdam, Oslo, or closer to US, Disney Land.

[voussoir]

> Cities aren't loud; cars are loud

Here's the Not Just Bikes video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV-wwszGw8

[tzs]

Cities were loud long before cars. See

https://www.medievalists.net/2016/02/the-noisy-middle-ages/

https://daily.jstor.org/a-history-of-noise/

https://ephemeralnewyork.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/a-19th-cen...

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.64.5....

[dns_snek]

Practically none of those sources of noise pollution apply to modern urban areas. How many blacksmiths do you have working on your street today?

We've driven out nature, we don't have livestock or any animals other than rats and a few birds, we don't transport cargo on carts with wood & metal wheels, we don't live in industrial areas that produce noise pollution, we have laws governing loud music and such.

Above all, we have high quality windows now which block out almost everything but the loudest noises, usually those produced by cars.

[aidenn0]

I stayed in a hotel in a city recently. I wish the cars were the loudest thing. There was an ice-skating rink blasting music until after midnight and then a jackhammer at 6am. Needless to say, I didn't sleep well.

[dns_snek]

I get that, there are always going to be outliers, but "cars" are the right answer to the noise pollution question for the vast majority of the population. Construction is a valid one too, but that one is unavoidable except for all the car infrastructure.

[lotsoweiners]

Maybe for you but I’ve stayed in plenty of extremely urban areas in the US and abroad. The traffic noise was at worst a light background noise, white noise if you will.

The noises that bothered me were the live music from downstairs blasting into my room after midnight, people making a ruckus in the halls outside my room, people yelling on the street, loud emergency services vehicles.

Just like in an airplane it isn’t the sound of the aircraft that is annoying to me but the guy two rows in front talking to his bros.

The nice thing is I live in the suburbs and don’t hear any of the above and I also don’t hear traffic noise. The worst I hear is an occasional landscaping crew or circular saw but those don’t happen at 1 am.

[tekknik]

I used to travel to SF regularly, including after the removal of cars from market street. Additionally, i stayed on market street because of the ease of access to the offices i needed to go to. if cars are in fact the problem, how come market street is still loud enough today, with no cars, at 2 AM, to bleed enough sound through a double pane window with dense curtains?

cars are not the problem. anybody with any experience in life knows the more stuff and people you cram in a small area, the more noise (an heat for all you climate changers)

[aidenn0]

It might be better to differentiate between chronic and acute sources of noise. Traffic contributes mostly to chronic noise.

[SoftTalker]

Cars aren't that loud. Trucks, buses, and trains are loud, and that is what you have a lot of in urban areas.

[mitthrowaway2]

Unless they're made badly, trains are very quiet! They sneak up on you. Cars, trucks, motorbikes, and construction sites are loud.

[bluGill]

Diesel trains are loud and shake the ground. electric trains are quiet and can sneak up on you.

[SoftTalker]

Have you ever lived near the "el" in Chicago?

[fragmede]

Thing is, we can build better buildings that are more resistant to noise pollution, regardless of the source. If I can't hear my neighbors, then I can totally ignore them. Which makes it livable.

[dns_snek]

The problem with this is that it reinforces the notion that you "live" inside and only go outside when you need to get somewhere. How are you ever going to enjoy a nice street-side cup of coffee in peace? Or take a walk around your neighborhood? Or engage in any outdoor social activity?

If you allow the outside to be unpleasant, then people are increasingly going to stay inside which has negative societal ramifications.

[fragmede]

I think we can agree that not being woken up by your neighbors drunkenly blasting music at 3am is preferable to the alternative. But people should be able to live their lives and if they want to celebrate a big win at work or whatever, as long as it doesn't bother me, who am I to say they shouldn't at 3am on a Wednesday? Yes the outside needs to be nice as well, but we have to live together, and the best way is for me to be unable to hear them.

The outside needs to be nice, but making inside unpleasant doesn't accomplish that.

[tekknik]

> The outside needs to be nice, but making inside unpleasant doesn't accomplish that.

ignoring the problem outside exacerbates the issue and eventually leads to an undesirable outside. don’t live with broken windows.

[jamil7]

> The beauty of the US is that people have choices

This is backwards, you’ve got no choices in a lot of US cities other than to drive.

[erikaww]

I think you got it backwards. Cities now only build these subury sfh highway parking lot hellscapes and ban anything remotely dense

So everyone is pigeonholed into something you want

[tekknik]

density can be hugely detrimental to climate change if the city isn’t built in a green way, which no US city currently is and will likely not be in your lifetime. under the guise that your desire to live in a highly dense climate wasteland, by 2035 we should require either everybody move away from city centers, or require cities be zero emission.

your decisions are affecting me, isn’t that the norm now?

[earthling8118]

If we can't make the more efficient cities sustainable, why in the world would it be possible to do the same thing with everyone spread out?

[tekknik]

> The beauty of the US is that people have choices, and aren't pigeonholed into someone else's idea of "enjoyable".

For now, not to long ago the left seemed adamant about forcing everyone into sprawling concrete jungles. I give it a few more years at most before they’re back at it pushing to cancel cars and force people to move to high rises.