Hacker News Reader

Comment by nocman | Hacker News Reader

Not everyone who lives in the U. S. wants to live in a city.

Are you suggesting we should give up our right to chose where we want to live so you can have more small cities?

There is every indication that more people would like to live in cities, but can't afford to.

Pittsburg seems nice enough but seems to be pretty reasonable. Dallas? I'd say very nice, with a mix of suburbs and city spaces and a much nicer set of roads and light rail than was there in the 1980s.

Perhaps there is compromise? Perhaps this is really only a real problem in SanFran and NYC. Even NYC has The Bronx and good rail service.

I find Dallas horrifically laid out. Too many suburbs, too many big roads, waste of space. Pittsburgh and all the other cities that boomed during the 'great' periods of America have the same problem, which, notably, San Francisco and NYC have somewhat less of -- big roads for big cars, and big garages to take those cars home to.

The problem isn't sparseness or density, it's a combination of readily available fossil fuels and mindset, I believe.

Dallas proper has pretty good light rail which extends all the way to some of what used to be considered exurbs ( like McKinney ). There's the usual clusters of 3-7ish story condo blocks in spots, towards University, around Deep Ellum. Even in Plano, close to the tracks.

If the position is simply to oppose cars altogether, then I don't know where you can go. But I suppose you can find a bus to take you there...

There are also a lot of people who don't want to live in big cities, but do it for the economic opportunity.

Paying more for housing is part of moving to a big city.

I'd never suggest giving up the right to live where you want while you have the means. We can have both mice smallish but well-cultured cities that respect their surroundings as well as have vibrant rural communities. Think Heidelberg and its surrounds, maybe Ithaca in NY.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com