Comment by narush | Hacker News Reader

Comment by narush | Hacker News Reader

I _highly_ recommend consuming more of the content put out by Strong Towns [1]. If I were to summarize their message, it's that in the past 100 years, we've engaged in a large-scale experiment to design our places around cars. This is bad for safety, bad for the economy, and (most importantly!) bad for us people that live in these places! Content and education-wise, they are my favorite non-profit :)

If you're looking for audio: their podcast [2] is great (this article came out yesterday as a podcast, and I listened to it while I was biking... and then got angry at all the cars driving around me, lol).

If you're looking for something longer-form, I'd recommend reading Confessions of a Recovering Engineer [3]. It's literally fantastic, and changed the entire way I think about the suburbs and cities. I grew up in a suburb and recently moved to the city, and had this deep, under-thought feeling that the walking/biking (and the livability that came from it) was why I loved cities so much. This book helped me understand why I felt that way, what specifically is wrong with how we build place currently - and also practical things I could do about it!

Not to be dramatic, but that book took me from pretty much _never_ thinking about place to: volunteering for a local bike advocacy group, biking twice as much, and literally being a more friendly neighbor. Effects not guaranteed, but I can't recommend this book highly enough if you're interested in this sort of thing.

P.S. I am totally unaffiliated with Strong Towns. I just really like them :)

P.P.S. If you're looking for some interesting drama, check out the lawsuit they are currently engaged in [4] with the Minnesota Board of Licensure. IANAL, but it kinda just seems like the engineering licenses boards are trying to shut down his speech because he points out that maybe letting only-technical engineers totally design our spaces isn't really the best idea!

P.P.P.S. Donate here [5]!

[1] https://www.strongtowns.org/

[2] https://www.strongtowns.org/podcast

[3] https://www.strongtowns.org/book

[4] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/2/21/the-latest-upd...

[5] https://www.strongtowns.org/membership

Seconding this, a large number of current social problems can be attributed to the way our cities is built. Homelessness (land use is inefficiently prioritizing single family homes and parking lots), public health (car dependency encourages minimal walking), and human connection (shared spaces become less appealing when they're not <10 minutes outside your doorstep). The places we live in has been structured in a manner unlike any other time period in human history and it's simply accepted without question. It takes a bit to wrap your head around but if you go in willing to suspend prior beliefs, it's definitely worth it if you want to understand why the world is the way it is in certain parts of the world.

Of course there are going to be caveats and cars will always have a use. What matters is that people have a choice of convenient public transport rather than cars being the only option that's practical.

You can't conduct commerce on a bike. Anti-car policies are also closely coupled with inflated housing prices, since they effectively reduce the available housing supply by requiring employees to commute from within public transit distance of their job.

I'd highly recommend reading Confessions of a Recovering Engineer before debating my communication of it. There's a lot more depth to the arguments than the one-sentence summary a novice (me) can give :)

Namely, Strong Towns isn't anti-car! In fact, they explicitly arguing _against_ removing cars from city centers in most cases, for reasons related to those that you mention. If I remember correctly, many towns tried to do this in the 70's or something, and most of them failed; cars are still required in most cases.

That being said, _requiring_ cars and _allowing_ them are very different things. Being anti-bulldozing city blocks to put in 6-lane highways isn't anti-car, it's pro people!

Again, highly recommend engaging with the source material rather than taking my word for it. I've been consuming and parroting (sometimes badly) their content for months - they have been thinking about these questions for literally decades!

> That being said, _requiring_ cars and _allowing_ them are very different things. Being anti-bulldozing city blocks to put in 6-lane highways isn't anti-car, it's pro people!

That's a semantic argument that doesn't address the real problems that skimping on commuter infrastructure can cause. San Francisco and Seattle have both achieved some of the highest housing prices in the nation thanks to chronic underinvestment in highway infrastructure.

Check out the book! You'll get a lot from it I think -- even if it's just a better understand of a different viewpoint :)

No thank you: I don't care for content that's searching for evidence to support a preconcieved position. There is too much dogma and not enough pragmatism in this space.

I already get enough of their content on HN to recognize dogma when I see it. Quite frankly, it's a circlejerk where everyone else is wrong unless they follow the ST-scene's ideologically-founded prescriptions, and if you post evidence to the contrary you'll often get shouted down.

> There is too much dogma and not enough pragmatism in this space.

And rejecting other viewpoints out of hand isn't dogmatic?

Thanks for the book recommendation! I’ve ordered it.

Anti car policies need to be paired with pro sustainability and livable city policies. You can’t do just one or the other, both need to happen close to simultaneously. We need to strongly discourage car use and encourage sustainable transportation while strongly safeguarding it for those who truly need it, rather than those who just want it.

You can conduct many types of commerce, maybe most types of commerce by bike. You can’t do things like say transporting more than two sofas, or large scale building materials, but if the goal is to reduce car usage as much as possible you’d be surprised how much you can do with a good cargo bike.

With an electric bike most people could easily do a 15km commute within 40 minutes especially where provided safe cycling infrastructure. And with no need to store and transport all of these cars despite them only being used for two hours a day you can use all of that space to build more housing.

People who want to live outside of population centres and thus feel the need to own a car but need to commute into population centres can instead commute to large scale park and ride for public transit. Maybe they can also charge their cars there too, maybe even for free with ownership of a transit pass.

And the best part about strongly discouraging car ownership and usage while strongly encouraging sustainable transport is that it frees up space on the road for busses, emergency services, cyclists, pedestrians, and those who need vehicles for transporting goods or for accessibility reasons.

Finally, consider that housing prices in areas with sustainable transport options might be higher because people want to live where they can safely walk and cycle surrounded by trees and plants. Make that possible for anybody who wants it and we’ll have a cheaper house prices, healthier populations, less climate change, safer societies, and just generally a nicer time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com