|
FCKGW posted:
lol if you think I'm not going to jack off in your car too
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:07 |
|
|
boner confessor posted:the main things which influence home buying are price per size and school district. transportation is much less important once you pass the sanity test of "would my expected commute be reasonable", same as amenities know if that was any different back when more people expected to be working in the same place longterm? Like, back in the day company towns/employee housing seem like they were much more of a thing and if you were gonna have the same commute for 30 years half an hour vs. an hour would seem pretty compelling to me, but gently caress letting a job that'll last maybe five years tops affect your thirty-year mortgage. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:My impression of housing in North America is also that wood frame was kind of a good idea back when there were still old-growth hardwood forests to cut down (leaving aside the environmental externalities), while modern wood houses basically follow the same construction plans, but with lovely lumber grown in short cycles on plantations. The consequence is that while 100-year-old+ middle-class housing is still good today, the houses built post-WW2 are largely being torn down. If the house was structurally sound on Day 1 pine isn't going to just crumble into dust on its own any faster than oak does, and it'll just flex where masonry would crumble; might get termites and black mold cause the construction crew soldered the plumbing together out of odd-size scrap ends from another project and built the foundation to rest in a puddle but that'll wreck a house made out of brick or steel or slabs from Stonehenge just the same. Where houses get torn down here it's largely for economic reasons (redevelopment, houses being abandoned and no longer maintained for long stretches) not because the frame's expired. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Assuming a fleet of cars that is usable by the general public, the big changes in my mind would be: are employers also going to collectively agree to like stagger work hours or something because like 80% of that driving all happens at the same time, when people actually need their own car, and before and after that there's not like this huge pool of potential commuters who are obliged to get around on foot because all the cars are ensconced in their parking lots driverless. The automation contributes absolutely nothing here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 23:49
|
|
) personal car ownership will have all sorts of positive externalities. No longer will folks have the albatross of a questionable car hanging over them, wondering if today's the day they'll be fired because the car didn't start. People will have less exposure to salesmen convincing them they can totally afford (nonsensically priced luxury car with terrible loan terms).
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Yeah, you still need enough to meet peak use, but that's less than 100%. Not to mention that, while they still have to be stored, they don't have to be stored in residential or commercial areas, freeing up the more valuable downtown space used for parking. Not sure at what point the additional travel time to the city offsets this, would definitely have to figure it out city by city. I'm not purporting this as a substitute for transit at all, it's certainly not. what statistically significant group of people are you imagining currently have a car, don't use it to drive to work, are still contributing to rush hour traffic and using up inner-city parking space during peak hours regardless, and wouldn't own a car if they could just Uber everywhere? if this is really just down to the utopian vision of being able to relocate parking garages to slightly cheaper real estate outside the beltway (at the expense of radically increasing rush hour traffic, as now you've got all the cars travelling across town to pick up their owners to contend with too), that's sort of more reasonable but also who cares A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Dec 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:edge cities in DC are usually clustered around a transit stop too, which is an example of value capture yeah Reston goddamned exploded when they put in the silver line kinda chancy this'll continue with the Metro nigh-unusable for anyone who needs a reasonable expectation of getting to work on time though lol
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Tokyo is more distributed than NYC yes but uh one of those is a proportional map of the land with the subways overlaid and one is a transit line map where all lines run perfectly straight at 45 degree angles and all stops are spaced equidistantly for maximum readability; it bears only the faintest relation to the actual layout of Tokyo (and is an extremely poorly designed attempt at what the DC metro map does IMO) This is what Tokyo's metro system actually looks like, viewed from above like the New York map. Still can't find the center? 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
I'm not actually aware of any cities that have multiple discrete downtown areas with heavily developed infrastructure and high-rises and all; when I hear about polycentric cities I tend to think more along the lines of Portland or San Francisco or Austin where there's still one clearly definable 'heart' to the city, they just also contain a more evenly distributed network of semi-independent suburban villages with their own commercial corridors. Versus, say, DC or Baltimore, where outside a grocery store or an Outback Steakhouse here and there the suburban sprawl is a bunch of bedroom towns supporting people who all go to shop and work in the city center. This changes the commuting profile, yeah, but it's all a distinction of degrees than of kind and I don't think the result is particularly what's been described ITT so far. You can live in Portland, say, in Mt. Tabor or Humbolt or something and just never really go downtown, or be working in a job aimed primarily at serving those who work downtown, whereas if you're in Alexandria or Reston if you're not getting on 66 in towards the DC Beltway every morning you're serving coffee for the people who do. The former doesn't seem to increase dependency on the automobile in those towns, rather the opposite in fact. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Dec 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Blockade posted:Traffic is a 'critical mass' problem. If you can redirect only 6% of 'problem drivers' down side streets you can completely alleviate LA rush hour traffic at its worst. Theoretically this can already be achieved via apps like Waze and Google Maps but people that can use those apps dont overlap a lot with that 6%. Self-driving cars and buses would go a long way to alleviate traffic even if they make up only a percent of vehicles. You think the people who don't use... GPS with traffic are going to be the early adopters on Herbie?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:07 |
|
|
If the near-universal ownership of a $100 device that'll reroute you around that pileup and also let you browse Tinder in staff meetings hasn't revolutionized traffic in any notable way I have a really hard time seeing how Christine the $50,000 experimental luxury toy is going to like maybe in 50 years when that's every lovely car on the road but by that point what the gently caress kind of future are you postulating where everyone is still commuting, period A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Dec 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 19:20
|
|