Current Events > Why is the internet so obsessed with "walkable" cities

(+) Yeah! (+)

You mainly see this on X. And I dont know why. I feel like they romanticize an image in their head. Cars are evil, walkable cities peak living. Until you literally have to do anything besides walking to a restaurant. Groceries, going to work, literally going anywhere. Trains and buses take forever and most of the time filled with some of the worst RPG enemy encounters in society. My 17 minute drive to work would turn into an hour plus commute of walking and taking buses for no reason

idk where the internet got this idea that having a house with grass opt landscaping is the devil and not wanting to live multiple floor apartments condensed into one area

Bike/scooter with basket, like all of Asia.

The idea of living somewhere where everything is within walking distance is superior to the idea of living somewhere where you need to drive everywhere

Because cars and single family homes are horrific for the environment.

Noname13 posted...

X

twitter

because gas prices and traffic

Most people's though process begins and ends with the fantasy of some city utopia where everything is like 5 minutes from their door. They're not thinking practicality, cost, logistics, etc.

My 17 minute drive to work would turn into an hour plus commute of walking and taking buses for no reason

On this particular point, I think the idea of a walkable city is supposed to be a "15 minute city" IE residential and business is layed out so you're less likely to need a long commute to work.

Personally, I grew up in a very rural area so not having access to a car would make me anxious

Probably because theyve travelled to somewhere outside the US where public transport isnt just a band-aid for poverty.

if work, the store, restaurants/fast food places, centers of entertainment (malls, movie theaters, etc.), and so on were within walking distance, my life would greatly improve.

It's certainly not a bad idea for people who want to live in cities, but I'd never want to live in one. Local cites seem horrible, and I've never even been to one with a high population density.

Because owning a car is becoming more and more expensive and shouldn't be a necessity for every day life

Noname13 posted...

Until you literally have to do anything besides walking to a restaurant. Groceries, going to work, literally going anywhere. Trains and buses take forever and most of the time filled with some of the worst RPG enemy encounters in society. My 17 minute drive to work would turn into an hour plus commute of walking and taking buses for no reason

I mean, a walkable city with good public transportation makes those things easier is the whole point.

But, I don't really care if people want their suburbs. I just think cities should make it legal to build walkable areas with dense housing. If no one wants to live in them then fine. But right now it is simply illegal or practically impossible to build the type of housing, public transportation, and services that would exist in a walkable city.

If suburbs are so wonderful, then there should be no fear in making urban areas legal. Let it actually be a free market and let people have options. You can live in the suburbs and pay for those costs. And others who have different tastes can live in more urban areas, legally build homes for that area, and they can also pay the costs for that.

You can still use your car. There's not really a drawback to making cities more easier to navigate. Weird thing to be against.

Noname13 posted...

Trains and buses take forever and most of the time filled with some of the worst RPG enemy encounters in society. My 17 minute drive to work would turn into an hour plus commute of walking and taking buses for no reason

Trains and buses take forever in your area because of lack of mass transit support. Your 17-minute drive ignores parking, maintenance, and going to the gas station. I understand if you live in an area that requires you to drive, but the point is more focused on areas where mass transit and infrastructure already exists.

MC_BatCommander posted...

Because owning a car is becoming more and more expensive and shouldn't be a necessity for every day life

Adding with the unneeded stress of car maintenance, insurance, registration and other shit

Rika_Furude posted...

The idea of living somewhere where everything is within walking distance is superior to the idea of living somewhere where you need to drive everywhere

This cause I hate driving.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Are you disabled? Seems quite easy if you're only walking 10-15 minutes. 80 year old grandmothers do it every day with carts and suitcases.

Cars are evil, walkable cities peak living.

Also, more people using public transportation and driving less ultimately means better road usage for those who do have to actually drive due to disability, work, etc.

It's really just about making other options be actually feasible, and in some cases, making drivers and people who live far away pay the real cost of driving and suburban living.

I don't care much for the "cars are evil" rhetoric, it's simply just about giving people more freedom and not subsidizing less efficient forms of travel.

emblem-man posted...

But, I don't really care if people want their suburbs. I just think cities should make it legal to build walkable areas with dense housing. If no one wants to live in them then fine. But right now it is simply illegal or practically impossible to build the type of housing, public transportation, and services that would exist in a walkable city.

If suburbs are so wonderful, then there should be no fear in making urban areas legal. Let it actually be a free market and let people have options. You can live in the suburbs and pay for those costs. And others who have different tastes can live in more urban areas, legally build homes for that area, and they can also pay the costs for that.

Sooooo... Basically the NYC 5 boroughs, along with Long Island?

Nobody tell him that even if he insists on driving, creating reliable mass transit would actually make his commute easier.

Southernfatman posted...

You can still use your car. There's not really a drawback to making cities more easier to navigate. Weird thing to be against.

You can't do 15 minute cities and also have a parking space for every adult unless you bus them out of the city to remote parking.

I've lived in the suburbs where you had to drive everywhere, and I live in a very walkable city currently. I'll take the city over the suburbs 10/10 times. Having to leave the city to visit family is the biggest pain in the ass though.

bigblu89 posted...

Sooooo... Basically the NYV 5 boroughs, along with Long Island?

You mean in terms of density and walkability?

Sure. But NYC also needs more housing still.

s0nicfan posted...

You can't do 15 minute cities and also have a parking space for every adult unless you bus them out of the city to remote parking.

If you do 15-minute cities, then less people would need to use cars = space saved for those who still use cars.

lydiaquayle posted...

If you do 15-minute cities, then less people would need to use cars = space saved for those who still use cars.

So when you only build parking for 10% of the population, who gets a spot?

Walkable cities are more profitable and better for everyone all around. Kids can go places without needing to need a car, adults can work jobs within walking or biking distance, going to stores to get stuff isn't an all day routine.

Plus, you don't run into the annoying problem of pay for parking that plagues a lot of cities.

It's a counter reaction to how the US is so poorly designed for anything but car commuting. Combine that with a worsening infrastructure and continuously growing traffic in an infrastructure ill equipped for it and you'll get people wanting alternatives

s0nicfan posted...

You can't do 15 minute cities and also have a parking space for every adult unless you bus them out of the city to remote parking.

Why do you need a parking space for every adult?
In a 15 minute city, you'd incentive people to use public transportation and ideally not need a car because it's hopefully just a better form of transportation for the person. For those who need a car, that option is there.

Parking is one of those things that we subsidize heavily. Literally making it insane cheap to park a car in one of the most highly prized real estate. It's an insanely inefficient method of land use policy. If you want to prioritize the parking for the disabled or families or whatever, that's an option as well.

emblem-man posted...

You mean in terms of density and walkability?

Sure. But NYC also needs more housing still.

But you can't have it both ways, and this isn't me arguing, just making a point.

Some company comes in and buys up an abandoned apartment complex, fixes it up, and then people complain, even if they are apartments that are built for ownership.

Mainly becasue anything being sold by a "corporation" is seen as evil.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Only if you buy a huge amount and even then, a lot of people in walkable cities bring wagons or other ways to carry big loads. Also, no ones saying you couldnt use a car in a walkable city, just that you dont need to most of the time.

I spent about 7 years in suburbs about an hour outside of Tokyo and Seoul. During that time I could take the train to work and had all the places (train stations, bus stops, grocery stores, restaurants, convenience stores (real ones), bars, recreation centers, etc) I could want within a 15 minute walk max.

If necessary (cold, hot, travelling to somewhere far away, getting a lot of stuff from the store, etc), I could drive, but I usually didnt need to, and I cant even express how satisfying that was.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I literally buy all of my groceries around the neighborhood. I only use a car when I have to buy something that is 50 pounds or more and I have to travel more than 2 miles. Welcome to NY, where the vast majority of people get by just fine without a car.

This is the most "old [conservative] man yells at [liberal] clouds" thread I've seen in a while.

Whenever I hear people describe a walkable city, I just picture those Main Street, USA "One light towns" in the middle of nowhere where everyone knows each other and everyone works in some mom and pop shop that's all on one block.

I guess I really need to look into exactly what they are before I give a true opinion.

bigblu89 posted...

Some company comes in and buys up an abandoned apartment complex, fixes it up, and then people complain, even if they are apartments that are built for ownership.

Are the apartments priced for people living in the area, or are they jacked way the fuck up?

emblem-man posted...

Why do you need a parking space for every adult?
In a 15 minute city, you'd incentive people to use public transportation and ideally not need a car because it's hopefully just a better form of transportation for the person. For those who need a car, that option is there. Parking is one of those things that we subsidize heavily. Literally making it insane cheap to park a car in one of the most highly prized real estate. It's an insanely inefficient method of land use policy

"You don't need a car" isn't the same as "we've made it impossible for you to have a car" which is why I brought up parking. Paying lip service to drivers while building infrastructure that makes it difficult to actually have a car isn't a practical solution unless the goal is to force people to give up cars because it's a 30 minute commute to where you can park it.

bigblu89 posted...

Some company comes in and buys up an abandoned apartment complex, fixes it up, and then people complain,

Because that company came in and received government tax credits, fixes it up, and prices them so that only millionaires can afford them. Without the government tax credits, the company doesn't bother.

Americans really struggle with the idea of walking more thank like 7 minutes, huh :P

DrizztLink posted...

Are the apartments priced for people living in the area, or are they jacked way the fuck up?

They're market priced.

If they go up for sale and people are willing to buy them, are they really "jacked up"?

pinky0926 posted...

Americans really struggle with the idea of walking more thank like 7 minutes, huh :P

Exactly. Imagine if these people actually visited European cities and had to walk around everywhere.

Some people get fixated on certain concepts and throw themselves into the novelties.

I have a friend who thinks all cities should convert their roads to one-way streets because it 'helps traffic' but that sounds like an absolute nightmare to me.

It just sounds nicer. At least for me, when I see "walkable" city I imagine a well developed, gentrified area in the city and nice to live in. Otherwise if I hear it's not very walkable I imagine a run down area in the middle of nowhere.

bigblu89 posted...

They're market priced.
If they go up for sale and people are willing to buy them, are they really "jacked up"?

Yes, they are. Because many of these apartments are bought up by rich people as investments, and then they just leave them empty, or rent them out to rich visitors.

MC_BatCommander posted...

Because owning a car is becoming more and more expensive and shouldn't be a necessity for every day life

Unless you live in a major city, owning some form of transportation will always be a necessity. Otherwise you become one of those pains in the asses who bums rides everywhere.

In this area you never see cabs. There's no Uber, door dash, grocery store delivery, etc.