Comment by burlesona | Hacker News Reader

Comment by burlesona | Hacker News Reader

I agree with this a lot. I was pretty anti-kid, not in the sense that I didn’t want them ever, but that I didn’t want them “any time soon.” My wife was this way too, until one day she wasn’t. I still felt pretty ambivalent about the whole thing until our first was born.

Children really are interesting, and really do fill life with all kinds of quietly wonderful moments.

We live in San Francisco, which is very hilly. When we drive up and down steep hills, my daughters get so excited. They squeal with glee like they’re riding a roller coaster, and beg us to drive up and down the hills again.

That may sound mundane, but when you’re there, sharing the sheer joy of life with fellow humans, it’s anything but.

Now looking back, the thing that I regret is that the modern world is pretty anti-kid, and makes things harder than they need to be. Cars, in particular, are terrible for kids. The roads are deadly, my number one fear is that they’ll run into the street and get hit. Car seats are also the worst. Long road trips are physically painful for the kids, I’m sure, so we’ve cut back on those. I wish, very much, that I could find a car-free city in North America to move to, but this doesn’t seem to exist.

The car-is-anti-human sentiment is one I can deeply empathize with. Just like oxygen and water, cars and their perils were with our generation since birth, and therefore for most are subconsciously taken for granted in life. But once you spend enough time in urban areas that have consciously rooted them out, you realize that their super loud noises, toxic smelly fumes, and omnipresent fear of death from them are indeed crushing to the human spirit. I’m also looking for cities in the U.S. that really do put “walkability” (and biking, e.g.) first. But the damage is so bad from the 20th century, thanks to the invention and explosive proliferation of the car, and socially the psychology of their existence so deeply rooted in most of our minds (“There could be no other way...”), that I don’t see enough strength to this movement. I’m typing from South Beach in Miami, e.g., which I think would be a perfect home were it not for the (probably, on average by land use in many cities) ~40% ownership by cars. I’ve lived in e.g. Amsterdam where the entire transport system was built around biking, and that from experience was such a liberating mindset to have every day, being able to bike across the city in 15 minutes. Alternatively I do wonder about e.g. Barcelona’s superblocks, about how the livability in small car-less or minimal car neighborhoods may improve (i.e. what small-scale neighborhoods without cars but also with sufficient amenities could be fantastic to live in?). Living on lush college campuses is typically a good example of where a much smaller percent of the land use goes to car transport, and it is expected that people walk and bike more - generally across landscapes with a lot more green than dead concrete.

I’m wondering if there any new urban projects, ideally in the U.S, potentially on the scale of the superblocks or e.g. NYC’s High Line / Atlanta’s Beltline / Miami’s Underline, where ecosystems are emerging beyond the reach of cars?

Have you heard of Culdesac? It's a YC company building the first 100% car-free neighbourhood in Temple, Arizona.

https://culdesac.com

It's Tempe, not Temple and the neighborhood doesn't exist yet. Just announced recently.

I hadn't heard of this, thank you for sharing!

It's not car-free. Its aiming for "personal ownership of cars"-free.

Actually a pretty old project, but take a look at the Park la Brea development in LA. It's a gated community in the middle of the town taking up two city blocks. They are extending the subway there as we speak.

There's also the village green, where the interior of the development is completely pedestrian only. That place isn't far from the expo light rail and the upcoming lax light rail.

LA has a lot of small bungalow courts that face inward to a courtyard rather than the street, but they aren't nearly to the scale as the above developments.

> Cars, in particular, are terrible for kids

They're the number 1 killer of children in the US. They are objectively terrible for kids.

Especially the SUV. Virtually unsurvivable.

And everyone (especially parents) feels like they need an SUV, because everyone else has one, and they believe being in an SUV in a crash will make it more survivable (especially if the opposing vehicle is an SUV). It's a vehicular arms race, and everyone is defecting instead of cooperating.

Ah well, at least collision avoidance systems are getting quite good. Hopefully they improve more and become standard on all vehicles.

"quite good" there was a post here recently about how they fail the majority of the time and are totally useless at night.

North America is too big. And many decisions we made in the 40s and 50s put the car at the center of life. Car ownership was an expression of freedom and a growing middle class. The Eisenhower highway system ensured we could drive coast to coast.

In NYC, Robert Moses put the car at the center of his infrastructure build out. That's why Manhattan has two highways up and down it's waterfront... A squandered opportunity to have created a city that was more attune with it's surroundings.

Ultimately you might need to move to Europe to go car free. But most of the cities I'm thinking of were planned a millennia ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com