I think the thing that would help the most would be to get rid of single family only zoning. That should result in a lot more, higher density housing being built. However, that’s not going to bring down the price of single family homes. In fact, it would probably make them more expensive. Maybe not everyone would think that’s such a good thing, but it’s absolutely necessary if we want to reduce car dependency.
Nobody’s laying tracks all over the place to actually make cars obsolete - that would be an insane waste of space, resources and time.
Cars may not require tracks, but they require infrastructure. You’re not driving anywhere without roads, bridges, and other car infrastructure, unless you are driving a fully off-road vehicle.
A lot of economists don’t listen to anything Joseph Stiglitz says, because he’s not from the Chicago school. Economics is so stupid.
If a laptop is left unattended long enough to do a fresh Arch install, it’s probably been abandoned anyway.
People will reflexively reject new and different possibilities when advocates are too radical or aggressive in their approach. That’s why it’s important that we try to win people over using reason and logic, rather than protests. The fact is, cars are an expensive and inefficient means of transporting people and things. That doesn’t mean cars don’t have their use cases. They certainly do, and that’s why I don’t think cars and small trucks will or should go away completely, but in an ideal (ie maximally cost effective and efficient) scenario, cars would represent a relatively small percentage of total conveyance methods.
I’d say it’s more than half the problem. It’s just too expensive, too inefficient, and just not sustainable. It must go, and once it does, suburban sprawl will go with it. Once that goes, higher density housing and mixed use development will become the norm, and when that happens, owning a car will become not only unnecessary but impractical, for many.
Suburban sprawl makes owning a car a necessity. If we’re going to significantly reduce the amount of driving Americans do, I think most people are going to have to give up on the American dream. Most people are just not going to be able to own their own, detached single family home in the suburbs.
Not uncommon at all. My cousin had a giant fifth wheel, and he would often pull his four wheelers behind it.
Your Subi wouldn’t be able to pull some of these American travel trailers. Many of them are absolutely massive, they’re like a luxury condo on wheels.
We have no sense of reasonable proportion here in the US. Everything must be unnecessarily large and unwieldy, gaudy and exorbitant. Bigger is always better here in the good 'ol US of A.
A lot of people who buy trucks these days just need something that can tow a travel trailer or a boat to their favorite camp site a few times a year. It’s not that they need a truck on a day to day basis, but they might need the towing capability on occasion. That’s why these trucks are a weird combination of luxury sedan (with their leather seats and high end interiors) and pickup truck. Most of the time they use it like a regular car, but sometimes they might need the towing capability.
Maduro’s government has cracked down on the opposition despite promises to pave the way to fair elections in exchange for relief from economic sanctions imposed by the United States last decade as democratic and human rights conditions deteriorated in Venezuela. The recent moves prompted the Biden administration to re-impose crushing oil sanctions last month.
Is there any evidence that sanctions like these actually achieve their stated goals? In this case, they certainly don’t seem to have worked. So, why double down?
I think that’s basically what condominiums are. I think condos could be a great option, but I don’t think they’re usually any less expensive. Of course, maybe they would become more affordable if enough of them were built.
I think that really is the ideal, for a lot of reasons. It’s better for the environment, it saves a lot of money overall, it’s better for mental and physical health, it really is the best way to go. However, I get why many people don’t like the idea of giving sometimes as much as half of their paycheck, or maybe even more, to some landlord. Luckily, there’s a solution for that, too: not-for-profit housing organizations. They’re essentially just like regular landlords, except instead of charging a market rent they just charge enough rent to cover all their costs, and that’s it.
I’ve been thinking about it, and I think I understand why many people have such strong reactions to the situation. Russia did illegally invade a sovereign nation, without provocation. They have killed thousands of innocent people and they have done incredible harm. It’s abhorrent. Any such unjustified invasion (like the US invasion is Iraq, for instance) is abhorrent. I suppose some people view my attempts to dispassionately look for peaceful solutions to the conflict as a kind of tacit support for Russia, or at least indifference. I am not indifferent, and I certainly don’t support their illegal and immoral actions, I just don’t want anything that could lead to more war, or more widespread war. However, as you’ve said, Russia has likely left the rest of the world with few other choices.
Isn’t Tankie a pejorative for Marxist-Leninists? I’m not a Marxist-Leninist.
I’ve learned my lesson, I’m not commenting on anything related to Russia, Ukraine, or NATO again. These people are…passionate, and they are not interested in hearing opinions that run counter to their own.
Yes, I am an idiot. Thank you for helping me see how stupid I am. I don’t remember saying what you’re saying I said, but you’re so much smarter than me, so you must know better what I said than I do.
Nuke the crocodile, then. I’ve decided I don’t care anymore.
Ok, I give up. I’ve been down voted to hell and told repeatedly by multiple people that I’m an idiot or a coward or a Russian bot for wanting a peaceful resolution to the conflict, so I’m going to defer to the expertise of all these people and concede the point. It’s not like my opinion was going to change anything anyway.
But I think the reason there isn’t space for everyone in many cities is because a large percentage, or even a majority of the land in many cities is zoned for single family only, even very near downtown areas. I think parking requirements have a lot to do with it as well, since they result in parking lots being built where condos, or other multifamily housing could be built. Theoretically if you get rid of single family only zoning and the parking requirements, more housing units could be built, even larger units, increasing their supply relative to the demand, thus bringing down the per unit price.
But maybe that theory is flawed. Maybe the problem goes deeper than zoning and parking requirements. A lot of these real estate developments are investments, and investors have an incentive to not build so much housing that the per unit price goes down significantly. Some people might argue that developers and investors could make up for lower per unit prices in volume, but that’s only true if they are large enough and have capital resources to produce at that higher volume, which might be fine for very large developers and investment companies, but not for smaller ones. Plus, large or small, why try to make money selling or renting more units at a lower per unit price when you can make the same amount of money selling or renting fewer units at a higher per unit price?