Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

For the record, I'm not defending car-dependent living. I wish there were more walkable options in the US for people to live in (myself included).

But there's an awful lot of copium in these kinds of threads that shallowly blame the lack of choice as to why American life is so car-dependent. Housing markets are extremely good at responding to consumer demand.

Here's a good quantitative data point of people expressing their preferences [1]:

> In 1973, the median new single-family house was just 1,525 square feet, according to the US Census Bureau. By 2010, it had grown to 2,169 square feet. And, by 2018, it had bloated to 2,435 square feet. Who in 1973 would have believed that a newly built typical American home would be 60% bigger than theirs in 45 years?

> There's another even more startling factor to take into account. Statista.com claims the average household in 1973 comprised 3.01 people, meaning the home offered 507 square feet per person. But by 2018, that household had shrunk to 2.53 people. And each had 962 square feet to stretch out.

Houses have gotten 60% larger while households have gotten 15% smaller in the last 50 years. That didn't happen in spite of consumer demand.

[1]: https://www.hsh.com/homeowner/average-american-home.html



> But there's an awful lot of copium in these kinds of threads that shallowly blame the lack of choice as to why American life is so car-dependent. Housing markets are extremely good at responding to consumer demand.

With-in the limits allowed by zoning policy. I'm not entirely laissez-faire but I think a lot of NIMBYism and just plain old inertial has been baked into by-laws and such.

Certain mandates can do good (tighter building envelopes, better insulation), while other mandates can do bad (minimum lot sizes).


> Houses have gotten 60% larger while households have gotten 15% smaller in the last 50 years. That didn't happen in spite of consumer demand.

Pre-WW2 there were large houses, in walkable and transit/cycle-friendly neighbourhoods, where people also now own cars:

* https://www.google.com/maps/place/150+Westminster+Ave,+Toron...

There were also more modest homes in the same are:

* https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+O...

These places now cost quite a lot, but in roughly 1960-90s they were relatively cheap because all the WASPs moved to the suburbs because 'downtown was for immigrants'; this particular neighbourhood was >90% Polish during the time period. Just to the east of this neighbourhood is Little Portugal, and to the west a large Ukraine community used to be concentrated (with a smattering of Lithuanians).

Now that urban living has become fashionable again, it has been gentrified (no more Poles) and the prices are crazy high.

But there's nothing unique about how it was built, and nothing is stopping communities from (e.g.) instituting zoning to mandate higher density (but less than Hong Kong levels):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb


While this suggests that people want more space in their homes, it doesn’t imply that they prefer car-dependent neighborhoods. That would only follow if > 2,000 sq ft precluded walkability.

I paid a large premium to own a home in one of the east coast’s walkable areas. Lot sizes here average about 0.15 acres, which is over 6,500 (single-story) square feet. Homes have front yards, back yards, off-street parking, gardens, trees, and still easily fit > 2,000 square feet of living space.

The dichotomy of “walkable vs comfortable” is a false one. There’s a middle ground between tiny high-rise apartments and sprawling McMansions.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: