Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw0101a | Hacker News Reader

> I think it's hard to find because those two preferences are in direct, irresolvable conflict.

Plenty of places that were built pre-WW2 have people walking for groceries and such, cycling and taking transit to work, and yet still have cars (street parking and back yard garages) for other longer distance errands:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0

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

Two go-to examples I use in these types of discussion in a particular neighbourhood I know; larger houses:

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

More modest:

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

View on HN

After living in Europe for a while Toronto is "ok" but still very car dependent.

I would point to Scandinavia (Finland, Denmark, etc) and parts of France and Germany as places that have cars but maintain walkable, bikeable cities.

Toronto is one example of where neighbourhoods were built that are not Manhattan- and Hong Kong-level densities, but are still not entirely car dependent. They were built semi-recently, and not some long-ago time period that is unrealistic to try to recreate.

They also have recognizable architecture that is not from the Middle Ages or Napoleonic age. You can explore some of these neighbourhoods (in Toronto and elsewhere) and realistically visualize similar houses being built today.

Of course Toronto suffered from the same automobile malaise as many other North American cities, first in the 'inner suburbs' (North York, Scarborough), and later in the "905".

Well I think there are cultural differences and that Europe is not the only acceptable model.

Both america and Canada are bigger and wilder than Europe. Cars are nice and a necessity to live in both countries. The neighborhood here is a good example of a walkable neighborhood that is also uniquely north American. That's okay. We don't need to replicate Europe when we have perfectly good, culturally appropriate models here.

The neighborhood here is exactly like my neighborhoods. It's lovely. I don't need to have old town Prague levels of walkability to be happy. Quite the opposite, where I am is perfect

> Both america and Canada are bigger and wilder than Europe. Cars are nice and a necessity to live in both countries.

Only in the rural parts. In Canada the population is highly concentrated very close to the US border (i.e., the southern part). While the 49th parallel is the 'meme' of the Canada-US border, 72% of the population lives below it, and 50% lives south of 45°42′ (45.7 degrees), including Toronto/GTA, Montreal, and Ottawa.

* https://brilliantmaps.com/half-canada/

The US is also quite concentrated: while there are over three thousand counties, half the population lives in just 244:

* https://www.businessinsider.com/densest-counties-in-america-...

Two-thirds of people live with-in 100 miles (160km) of the border:

* https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

Just Los Angeles county has more people than all but seven states (NY, NJ, IL, FL, TX, OH, rest of CA):

* https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/7fbx3q/states_with...

So yes, US and CA are physically quite big, but that seems irrelevant to land use policies for accommodating the human populations of each country.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com