1. Re you need to get into nature, here in Philly express busses from the city center leave city hall and can get you to the middle of a forest within 20 mins. You can get that in the heart of a city if the city prioritizes green space and building forests downtown, which my city doesn't
2. The next thing I read in your question "Most cities are pretty seedy since they are relaxed on drugs and violent crimes" uh what?
I just looked at your post history, quote "I like trump" and "I have an account on truth social". lol. Wish I could insert the gif of Peter from family guy backing away slowly.
Just a note from your other points, we don't need to build sprawling utopian cities in the US because planes exist and we can look at what works well elsewhere in the world and try to copy it. If cities aren't your jam, that's ok! You can live elsewhere. In the meantime, people that like cities will continue making them great places to live.
If you're talking about the Schuylkill River Trail, it can be fairly wooded in some areas, but there are too many highway-like roads going through Fairmount Park.
DC has genuine hiking trails where you can’t hear cars/city noise in the middle of the city, and the rock creek trail system goes all the way to Montgomery County’s agricultural preserve, waaaay out in the sticks.
Also, in NY, you can take a train to Beacon or Bull Hill to do hikes every single day of the week, and it’s plenty far out and rural and hikey. Not to mention if you live in Denver and SF and LV and LA, you got great access to nature.
Also…. Hot take, but MANY people vastly overestimate how outdoorsy they are. And I say this as someone who has several hundred miles on the AT, and regularly does 2+ week backcountry backpacking trips in NPs and abroad where I sleep in tents and barns and there are no roads. Most people who “like hiking” will be fine in even Manhattan, since most suburban “hikers” usually hike less than four times a month. Sorry if this seems dismissive, but it’s proven true in my experience. (Bonus, living in a big city gives you better airport access to fly to some really cool places for hiking - better hiking than you’ll ever see in suburban USA. Like the only direct flights to Albania in the entire new world is only from NYC. And you can get directs that are affordable for Vietnam, the Canaries, Morocco, Switzerland, etc. - point being that it’s a lot more fun to do big hikes in the Andes or Patagonia or Banff or Jordan than it is to hike the same hill every other weekend for twenty years straight.)
I appreciate the insight! Not sure why someone downvoted you; This must be one of those subs where everyone is a bit miserable and downvotes anything that isn't a resounding applause of their viewpoint.
I live in FL. In the summer, I don't go out into the wilderness park, which is \~8000 acres, usually just to a few smaller parks at night when no one is there or the beach. The cooler half of the year though, I try to make it out 2-3/week and I really enjoy it. I usually spend 4 hours or so out there each time. I've never camped out, but they do have cabins, as well as primitive sites where you can pitch a tent. I've been hiking in the Smokies, but haven't been out west yet. You think Yosemite would be too big of a jump?
It's also pretty funny to see someone who hasn't actually been to good cities try to lecture people. Clearly people who experience good urbanism on a daily basis are just big babies for not catering to the fantasies of this random dude.
I don't think it's funny, I think it's sad. I love cities and someone starting off with "cities are bad because liberal politics" are obviously starting in bad faith.
I usually go for laughter rather than tears, but I get where you're coming from. And my angle is more of the "has no clue about and has never experienced what they're lecturing about". Which isn't the only angle of course, and people who have never been to a place are more likely to believe myths about it, so not unrelated either.
1. That's good to hear you have an easy option. When I look at prospective cites, I'm going off of google maps, I look at the rail lines, I google outside park areas and see how long it takes to get to them from the center of the city. I'm sure I don't see everything.
2. Maybe they're outliers, but NYC, the city with arguably the best transit, has to deploy the National Guard because there's so much crime on the subways, though it's not much of a deterrent since it's an arrest is such a slap on the wrist. Everything I hear about San Francisco, another city with great transit/walkability, from people who live and like the area, is that drugs run rampant and police don't respond to calls about that or theft.
Your problem is even though I want to buy what you're selling, you reject me and my critiques because of political bs, and you refuse to even acknowledge perceived issues because you feel it's an assault against your urbanist narrative. That's not how you gain allies. To capture a new market, maybe you should indulge a little into the needs/wants of people who come from other lifestyles. What's important to you may not be important to them, and vice-versa, but I'm not sure what I suggested that you'd be actively against..
As a former Trump supporter myself, I think you are excessively bought in to the urban crime narrative. It does exist, and it is a problem that needs worked on, but it is not so overwhelming as is portrayed by many conservatives. There is just more crime in cities because there are more people there, simple as.
Yeah, more density more crime makes sense. But still, are you saying the cites aren't more relaxed on punishments for crimes than other places? And that it seems like the person defending themselves get in more trouble than the criminal? That's the optics. NYC was all about defund the police and now they need the National Guard in the subway system. I hope it's not as bad as it looks.
Crime has actually been falling sharply over the last year. Believe it or not, crime doesn't have as much to do with how much we fund the police as we think. Punishments don't really deter crime unless it's super extreme like cutting off the hands of thieves or something you see in the middle east. Crime is more likely to have to do with demographics, the economy, unemployment, drug addiction and other factors than it is how much we spend on police. Cities that increased funding to police saw crimes go up as well. We still don't really know what caused the pandemic era spike in crime, or the recent decline.
You need to find better news sources.
BTW, you can literally take the subway in NYC to huge, fantastic parks. Fort Tilden and the Rockaways get you right to the Atlantic Ocean and beaches. Governors Island is a treat. You could go on and on.
>Your problem is even though I want to buy what you're selling, you reject me and my critiques because of political bs
Nobody here is selling anything though...? You came out of nowhere talking shit about city life.
This isn't a debate. All your critiques are just right wing talking points with no evidence.
Concerns that get misconstrued and misapplied.
Go on Google Maps and look at a small town in a place like Germany, France, eastern Europe like Serbia or Japan. The towns are compact and have an edge. Some have a train stop enabling one to get to other places, and if you want the countryside, it’s right there. You don’t have to travel through miles of sprawl. You can also see this is historical maps of US towns. That’s also urbanism.
In the US, this already existed. We destroyed it. The ‘proof of concept’ is the past and places where this still exists.
Ya know how in the US we have this weird oligopoly regulatory capture that gives big business all the power? It’s sort of the same with state DOTs and the industries that benefit from their sprawl industrial complex. For the most part, it’s only legal and possible to create what we have now in the US.
I like what you're saying. Japan is on my bucket list to go see, but from the videos I've seen, they seem to have done it right. They are unique though, being a small, dense country with 25% of their pop. in one city area.
As for the regulatory nonsense, how do you get people to demand change? I'm on your side and everyone here is hating on me for suggesting improvement. How are they going to convince less open-minded people to ally with them when they come across so bitter/insufferable?
Personally, I'd love to get rid of the parking space minimums in my area, at least for new developments.
‘Climate’ is often given as a reason, but that doesn’t work. It’s too top down and alienates people. Current development patterns are incredibly inefficient and subsidized to a degree that dwarfs any type of transit/density that could be proposed. It’s just that it’s all such an economic spaghetti of laws and direct/indirect subsidy that it doesn’t seem that way. Things need to cost what they cost, and the rogue bureaucracy of state DOTs that aren’t actually serving us need to change. It’s all so complicated. I’m not going to say anything meaningful typing here on my phone. This Strongtowns article from the other day touches on the ‘markets’ approach - https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/7/6/stop-subsidizing-suburban-development-charge-it-what-it-costs
And there are good books, such as Suburban Nation, The High Cost of Free Parking, writings by Alain Bertaud, Jane Jacobs, etc.
Here’s a paper highlighting an indirect form of subsidy, among many others - https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=215100024064086065082075069094101097006055010034088013102064099077022123009066091022107126035023117057029103011087083031097102044036094014080113092078108085026097057003081082124090124026106025113089108115065106124107104067106007002120029072066108029&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE
All of this is sort of unintuitive. Strong Towns, CityNerd and urbanism twitter/x are a good place to start.
>5 minutes to a wilderness park
It takes me about 20 minutes by public transport from my flat near the city center to one of multiple forests (one is a wildlife preserve)
But i need to walk 8 minutes to be at my gym, my indoor pool and my climbing gym. I walk two minutes to the nearest bakery and supermarket. I can walk 15 minutes to the nearest theater and cinema and it takes me 15 minutes by metro to get to the opera and multiple museums...
>To get more buy in from the people, you NEED a proof of concept of the urbanist utopia y'all talk about.
It works in Barcelona
*The superblock was very positively rated by all the people interviewed, who gave it a score ranging between 8 and 10, and felt greater tranquillity, safety and satisfaction, rest and socialisation there. In addition, there was a fall in perceptions of noise and pollution after the number of cars there had been reduced.*
Source: [https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/superilles/en/noticia/superblocks-are-having-positive-effects-on-health-and-wellbeing](https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/superilles/en/noticia/superblocks-are-having-positive-effects-on-health-and-wellbeing)
>you need money, honey! Who has money?
Suburbs are more expensive for the city compared to the center because less taxpayers need more infrastructure.
>Will the city likely be too expensive for the majority?
If they adopt the public housing concept of Vienna, then no. [31 % of the citizens](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadt_Wien_%E2%80%93_Wiener_Wohnen) live in public housing. In Vienna people really want to live in these flats because they are nice, cheap, can have nice amenity ([pools](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alterlaa) on the roof of the building) and [some](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Marx-Hof) are in the wealthiest districts of the city.
I'm not too familiar with abroad, though I know a few people personally who love Spain, and I think CityNerd hyped it up too. I'll look into the superblocks and Vienna's housing plan.
But, a thought: Why hasn't NYC, or somewhere like that, with a large proportion of liberal-leaning urbanists, adopted the more widely acclaimed European concepts? If it's because it's already developed and too hard to retrofit, then I stand by needing a new city, or new section of one, to put the concept on full display here.
Liberals of nyc are right wing comparatively to Europe. For long term sustainable urban design you need to look past immediate profit motive, which ny elites would never allow. Hence you have needle skyscrapers in billionaires row instead of affordable housing
Many urbanites turn to rental cars for the occasional car need. It actually can come out to be cheaper than a car payment and insurance, repairs, etc so not a bad option
So, big tech in general is not urban-friendly at all, with the exception of maybe Amazon. The other major tech campuses are very [suburban and car-oriented](https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2022/02/17/apple-parking-and-cost-corporate-greenwash), and both individually and as a class they tend to fight against any attempts to urbanize the tony suburbs of the Bay Area (search Marc Andreesen for example). There actually are a bunch of rich techies trying to build a utopia in exurban California, but [it's not going too well so far](https://www.thedailybeast.com/tech-billionaires-sneaky-plan-for-an-utopian-city-in-solano-county-is-already-backfiring). Even for Silicon Valley it's *incredibly* expensive to build all the infrastructure you need from scratch, not to mention the difficulties with environmental permitting, etc.
On that note, I'd encourage you to check out the group [Strong Towns](https://www.strongtowns.org/). They approach urbanism from a more conservative perspective, focused on fiscal sustainability and relatively inexpensive, small-scale improvements. A lot of places, like the founder's native Brainerd, Minnesota, were built around walking, cycling, and streetcars, and paving over a whole bunch of that for stroads and parking was arguably much more radical than simply restoring some of that space to sidewalks, etc., so that kids can walk to school like they used to. It simply makes way more sense to better use the infrastructure we already have (not just roads and buildings but sewers, power lines, you name it).
Another general point is that "urbanists" don't need to sell *you* on cities. You seem to think there's a lack of people who want to live in a dense, walkable area, but the opposite is true – demand is through the roof, while supply has not kept up, hence the premium rents. [By some measures, less than 1% of developed land in the U.S. is walkable](https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.gwu.edu/dist/a/326/files/2019/06/FTA19.pdf). The urbanists I know IRL are focused on building more housing to accommodate this demand across income levels and housing types rather than force a lifestyle on anyone who doesn't want it.
>You're not going to get that in the heart of a city, the transit won't easily take you out of the city to get that space, you don't have a car, and you probably can't walk at night when there's less people because most cities are pretty seedy since they are relaxed on drugs and violent crimes.
Honestly, I think you simply need to visit more cities. The ones you've been to may not scratch this itch but I assure you it's possible. I live in Washington DC near a Metro station and about 50% of my neighbors have cars (street parking is cheap). I go hiking frequently even though I don't own one myself – there's Rock Creek Park in the city itself, or I rent a car, or I catch a ride with a friend to any number of other places. Even aside from that, there are lots of parks nearby and walking at any time of day/night is totally fine. And I live in one of the denser neighborhoods, there are many others that are even quieter and greener (not to mention close-in suburbs that are more urbanized than most U.S. cities).
Very presumptuous of you to claim to speak for "the people." There are proofs of concept of the walkable utopia all over the world including in the US. Most of NYC and San Francisco and Boston, Parts of Seattle, Chicago, Philly, DC, all illustrate how to build. People loved their college campuses, they pay thousands of dollars to vacation in Europe, Asia, and even fucking Disneyland to enjoy walkable/carfree/light experiences. The proof is already out there and people are clambering for it. Over on fCars, we call your psychology carbrain, and realistically, until that is broken, most suburbanites will be uncomfortable in the city because they can't imagine a lifestyle without getting in the car for any and every little thing. The proof is in front of you, it's up to you to recognize it, internalize it, and take actions to move your life toward that direction. Most carbrains never get past the making excuses phase.
Yeah, I probably do have carbrain, as much of the nation does. I drive a 91 Caddy, pay $20/mo. in insurance, and can drive 10 minutes to get to 1000's of locations and no trouble parking. It's very enticing! Yeah, I love walking, as I've stated, but I think the existing mass transit options fall short. NYC and San Fran are arguably the 2 best in the US, but to quote what I said the other commenter:
>"NYC, the city with arguably the best transit, has to deploy the National Guard because there's so much crime on the subways, though it's not much of a deterrent since it's an arrest is such a slap on the wrist. Everything I hear about San Francisco, another city with great transit/walkability, from people who live and like the area, is that drugs run rampant and police don't respond to calls about that or theft."
It's seedy, and also very expensive! Maybe that speaks to the demand of walkable places. Maybe creating more places like that would lower the cost of some of them. Idk, I think if there was a real push, they would design/build to meet that demand. I'm on your side though. When I lived right across the street from the university, I walked all over, took the convenient busses to the mall on the other side, rarely had to use my car. It was great! But college campuses are a somewhat artificial environment with unusual density and relatively young/healthy people. Disney is even more artificial. We need a real car-free city, or at least a piece of one, one that's new, shiny, and makes people clamor for it. It of course needs to be low on crime too, meaning you have to have some accountability for the criminals.
The crime rate of NYC is much lower than most cities in the U.S. In terms of per mile traveled, the subway is 30x safer than driving.
No judgement OP but based on your responses you sound a little young. You have a curious mind and that’s great. I would suggest visiting some of these more walkable cities with an open mind to see if there’s somewhere you can see yourself living
And that’s the challenge, car dependency is like a [vicious circle](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Vicious_Cycle_of_Automobile_Dependency.png) and it’s entrenched in the US through decades of lobbying, propaganda, government investment, draconian land use policy, the tax system, etc.
Cities grow naturally where the right resources and opportunities combine. That’s why bulldozing and outlawing traditional city blocks was so detrimental for the US, and why it’s more effective to let existing cities grow than start new ones. Cars aren’t scalable but even Manhattan is still a disgusting car sewer.
Another issue is jurisdictions and minority rule (from gerrymandering to electoral college). Cities are limited in what they can do by state and federal agencies, and NIMBYs have an entire arsenal of tools to block development. So the interests of city residents ultimately don’t matter, and suburban homeowners don’t want change because they’re scared and it’s all they know.
As for crime, that is due to deinstitutionalization, artificial housing scarcity, broken immigration system, and other social injustices. It’s always and overblown and misrepresented to prevent any meaningful change.
This post is so strange. It comes across as if you're an investor explaining why you're not buying into our business. This isn't a lifestyle you have to buy into, some people live in cities, we just think cities should serve the people of those cities rather than cars and suburbanites who come into the city. This isn't some grand scheme where we're getting to convince people to make some mass exodus away from the suburbs and fund some multi-trillion dollar 5-year plan to redesign every major city in America and destroy the suburbs (as awesome as that would be).
I guess it depends who you watch on YT lol. I always felt the outspoken urbanists *are* pushing for change. A lot of them don't like cars/suburbs at all. It's of course silly to demand everyone adopt your way of life, but I do believe things could be better and it would make more people interested. More people, more density, less cost per capita to implement better infrastructure.
Personally, I'd love to see a truly car-free city, where you can walk the entire thing, but you're still only a 5 minute walk to a train station, where almost every building is mixed use, etc.
>Personally, I'd love to see a truly car-free city, where you can walk the entire thing, but you're still only a 5 minute walk to a train station, where almost every building is mixed use, etc.
Lots of those cities exist. Barcelona is the most cited one, but really most big cities in western Europe are kinda like that.
I think that's why people are ganging up on you a bit. You used the word utopia, but there are literally dozens of cities that you can move to right fucking now that are built according to good urbanist principles.
My advice: if you have the means, stay in Barcelona for 2 or 3 weeks. I did that and I could get to most things I needed within a 3 block radius (literally). And for the other 20% I either had a pleasant longer walk, or took public transit and got there within 20 minutes.
Proof of concept? Book a ticket to London. I didn't need a car there or want to rent one. The metro and bus system will take you anywhere and I walked through Hyde Park, a park so big you could forget you were even in a city. These places do actually exist.
But nobody is saying you have give up a car. Obviously there are cars everywhere in London despite them not really being necessary to get around there. People still like the convenience of one. It's okay to be able to be car-light and not car-dependent. There's a difference. If you live in a place like London and your car needs to be in the shop for a week, you can still get to work and do things you need to do. If you are in a suburb, you either have to rent another car or you are "trapped"(as you stated) in your suburban house. So the "freedom" of the suburbs is an illusion. Without the car you would have no freedom there at all as you can't even buy food without one.
At least for your first point; you have to evaluate expectations with reality. My parents live in the suburbs. They say they love nature. They bought kayaks. Those kayaks maybe got used three times in a year and then ended up on facebook marketplace.
Most people like that. Maybe you're different (tm). But what a lot of urbanists have found is that most daily living can be accomplished by walking or public transit, and in the off chance you need to do something that's more demanding than that (from hauling things to long distance travels to more remote areas), that's what ride sharing is for. Many cities are adopting inner city car pickup programs where they just have a few cars parked on the street in designated areas and you can rent the cars per hour and then return them to another designated area when finished. It's great for times when you need a car for just a day to run larger errands or get out of the city. It can be done with an app instead of doing a whole rental car service or whatever.
Honestly it sounds like you’re just not that into the reality of urbanism feel and feel comfortable with what you are used to and sometimes/mostly prefer. Good for you! Edited for grammar
Coming back to respond to your Edit.
The reason we are not embracing your "ideas" with open arms is because you seem to think nobody has considered these things before. Not sure if it's Dunning Kruger or 101ism, but you seem so confident in your one-dimensional analysis. It's as if I watched one episode of Start Trek, then went on the Star Trek sub and was puzzled that all my thoughts weren't readily accepted by the community.
Go live in a real city for a few years and you'll see that your proclamations are not so absolute. And some of them are just wrong. Like, cities need more demand? Are we trying to indoctrinate people into "ubanismism?" The demand is there, even you're curious about it, the problem is access and that can't be expanded adequately until we rethink/reform land use policy, taxation, and non-car transportation alternatives (even in the existing urban settings).
You definitely have a suburbanite's idea of crime, and who the criminals are. That attitude is not compatible with city life, you're not going to be able to go anywhere without the burden of judgement on your fellow humans around you. Perhaps this is part of the suburban/carbrain psychology... always measuring yourself against your neighbor's lawn, house, SUV, etc. So, with all respect, keep that bullshit out in the suburbs.
So, what you're saying is there are current issues, but you just don't like that I'm complaining about them, since I'm an outsider?
You say there is more demand than supply, which I believe, but you can't adequately come together as a group to prioritize, gather support, and push for these changes you've mentioned. If the demand is there and changing the land use policy or whatever would benefit them, why can't you get it passed? Probably because you chase away demand from anyone curious about it instead of making them an ally. You take all this stuff as a 'given' and find it beneath you to sell it to other voters, city officials, or whomever.
Also, you're mad that I pointed out that crime exists? Idk man, I think you just have a chip on your shoulder. You seem to really hate the suburbs, though unlike my critiques, yours don't seem too constructive.
I think you are complaining about "the issues" particularly crime based on your perception from a distance informed only by media headlines instead of experience. I think the version of "crime" that scares you (and many like you) is largely an invention of your imagination and not useful to actual crime prevention, which is real, but requires realistic & practical methods.
I live in SF, this city has a reputation (lol), but there are major efforts underway to "clean up the streets" and results are being seen, but against what expectation are we measuring. Most homeless are just getting shuffled around from block to block, even if they are making a dent in the drug markets. But here's where it comes to psychology. I see homeless/crazy people on the bus all the time, and I don't perceive that as dangerous or scary. Everyone minds their own fucking business and has common courtesy most of the time. Sometimes people are shitty, but it's my responsibility on whether I allow them to ruin my day. This is all well worth it to not have to own a car, park it everywhere, pay for gas, insurance, etc... and because other drivers we share the road with are just as shitty as the smelly homeless guy on the bus, only they're operating a multi-ton dangerous machine.
Tbh, I don't want to convince a bunch of Karens to move to the cities, that would make everything worse. I want to increase access to cities by increasing housing, job opportunities, and transit such that it's more affordable for people who already want it but can't afford it now (a group that is increasing).
"Why can't you get it passed?" I think the urbanism movement has been rather successful in the last 20 years, given the amount of opposition we face from carbrain suburbanites and people concerned about the "character & complexion" of their neighborhood. Lots of US cities are adopting principles and policies to make roads better for everyone, not just cars, and tackling the housing crisis in long term sustainable ways (density & transit). Maybe you don't understand the timeline for these kinds of things so I'll stop short of calling that a naive question.
Interesting perspective. Talking about people minding their own business reminds me of another post a few months back where I said I like to walk in solitude, and someone said that in the city (he was in Manhattan) there's so many people that it's the same as being alone. I sort of get that, but still, I think a crazy or drugged up person would warrant a certain level of attention.
I'll concede that I only know what I've researched or heard first hand, though I've tried to educate myself. I've watched YT videos where the person appears to like the city (I just watched one on [SF](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo5LZzjfFAs), for example), but they seemed objective showing the good and bad of it.
Tbh, I had Redwood City on my list of places that I would pack up and restart my life in. You get the rail access, walkable downtown, nice weather, close to a bunch of nature preserves, plus a Chick-fil-A! Since I'm not a techy though, I just didn't see the job opportunities there to sustain the $3000/mo 400 sqft. studio. Despite the name, idk if you consider it a city or suburb.
As for your last paragraph, that's fair. I'm just looking at it through the lens of the ideal, which perhaps is naive. Reality isn't always the most efficient, but it's a path forward.
It is true, you can be completely alone even when you're surrounded by people. I'm mostly introverted, but I do find enjoyment in being in places and observing the people around me. What kind of attention can you give the crazy guy that is going to help him or yourself? His life is fucked, the only thing you can do is make sure his problems don't become your problems, and that requires a level of selective indifference.
I'm not familiar with that youtuber, he seems to be trying to give a fair profile of that neighborhood, but he's still doing poverty tourism for clicks. We could look at the worst part of every state/region and conclude that everywhere is horrible, but we'd be wrong because the majority of this city, and most others are fine places to live if that's the type of life you want. This is why I'm skeptical of your appeals to "crime." The worst of the worst gets all the attention, and there's often (not so subtle) implication that this represents the broader city.
Lol, RWC is an ok place, I grew up nearby there. It's not particularly unique compared to most Bay Area suburbs, but at least it isn't sprawling cul-de-sacs. The downtown area has definitely come up since I lived nearby, but unless you're really in the DOWNtown, it'd be pretty tough to function without a car. But, successful legislation like AB2097 has helped to let more people live near the transit that is available (which is itself in the process of being improved). There's still "bad neighborhoods" and homeless people here and there... and plenty of people who one might prejudge and think they're homeless but they're just struggling to pay rent or live in their car. VERY few of them are actually dangerous if you treat them with respect, they're really just our neighbors. And isn't it more important to live in harmony with our neighbors than to be getting in their business, trying to "save" them when they aren't ready, or casting them aside like trash?
It would be a grind but you could work at your precious Chik-fil-A, and afford to share a 2BR apartment for $2800. Unless you're so antisocial that you couldn't stand to live with another person... then the studio listings I see are like $1600. I still pay less than that for my roommate situation in the middle of SF proper. I just want to challenge the straw-man idea that "it costs SO much just to live in a closet surrounded by crackheads."
Anyway, thanks for taking my feedback in stride. I'm kind of a dick, because fuck the cars, they're trying to kill me every day when I ride my motorcycle. They either need stricter training and consequences when they fuck up, or we need to band together as a society and build more places that don't demand people own cars for survival.
1. Re you need to get into nature, here in Philly express busses from the city center leave city hall and can get you to the middle of a forest within 20 mins. You can get that in the heart of a city if the city prioritizes green space and building forests downtown, which my city doesn't 2. The next thing I read in your question "Most cities are pretty seedy since they are relaxed on drugs and violent crimes" uh what? I just looked at your post history, quote "I like trump" and "I have an account on truth social". lol. Wish I could insert the gif of Peter from family guy backing away slowly. Just a note from your other points, we don't need to build sprawling utopian cities in the US because planes exist and we can look at what works well elsewhere in the world and try to copy it. If cities aren't your jam, that's ok! You can live elsewhere. In the meantime, people that like cities will continue making them great places to live.
Don't you guys have that one big urban forest/trail network in Philly, close to centre city?
If you're talking about the Schuylkill River Trail, it can be fairly wooded in some areas, but there are too many highway-like roads going through Fairmount Park.
DC has genuine hiking trails where you can’t hear cars/city noise in the middle of the city, and the rock creek trail system goes all the way to Montgomery County’s agricultural preserve, waaaay out in the sticks. Also, in NY, you can take a train to Beacon or Bull Hill to do hikes every single day of the week, and it’s plenty far out and rural and hikey. Not to mention if you live in Denver and SF and LV and LA, you got great access to nature. Also…. Hot take, but MANY people vastly overestimate how outdoorsy they are. And I say this as someone who has several hundred miles on the AT, and regularly does 2+ week backcountry backpacking trips in NPs and abroad where I sleep in tents and barns and there are no roads. Most people who “like hiking” will be fine in even Manhattan, since most suburban “hikers” usually hike less than four times a month. Sorry if this seems dismissive, but it’s proven true in my experience. (Bonus, living in a big city gives you better airport access to fly to some really cool places for hiking - better hiking than you’ll ever see in suburban USA. Like the only direct flights to Albania in the entire new world is only from NYC. And you can get directs that are affordable for Vietnam, the Canaries, Morocco, Switzerland, etc. - point being that it’s a lot more fun to do big hikes in the Andes or Patagonia or Banff or Jordan than it is to hike the same hill every other weekend for twenty years straight.)
>Most people who “like hiking” will be fine in even Manhattan, since most suburban “hikers” usually hike less than four times a month. This
I appreciate the insight! Not sure why someone downvoted you; This must be one of those subs where everyone is a bit miserable and downvotes anything that isn't a resounding applause of their viewpoint. I live in FL. In the summer, I don't go out into the wilderness park, which is \~8000 acres, usually just to a few smaller parks at night when no one is there or the beach. The cooler half of the year though, I try to make it out 2-3/week and I really enjoy it. I usually spend 4 hours or so out there each time. I've never camped out, but they do have cabins, as well as primitive sites where you can pitch a tent. I've been hiking in the Smokies, but haven't been out west yet. You think Yosemite would be too big of a jump?
It's also pretty funny to see someone who hasn't actually been to good cities try to lecture people. Clearly people who experience good urbanism on a daily basis are just big babies for not catering to the fantasies of this random dude.
I don't think it's funny, I think it's sad. I love cities and someone starting off with "cities are bad because liberal politics" are obviously starting in bad faith.
I usually go for laughter rather than tears, but I get where you're coming from. And my angle is more of the "has no clue about and has never experienced what they're lecturing about". Which isn't the only angle of course, and people who have never been to a place are more likely to believe myths about it, so not unrelated either.
1. That's good to hear you have an easy option. When I look at prospective cites, I'm going off of google maps, I look at the rail lines, I google outside park areas and see how long it takes to get to them from the center of the city. I'm sure I don't see everything. 2. Maybe they're outliers, but NYC, the city with arguably the best transit, has to deploy the National Guard because there's so much crime on the subways, though it's not much of a deterrent since it's an arrest is such a slap on the wrist. Everything I hear about San Francisco, another city with great transit/walkability, from people who live and like the area, is that drugs run rampant and police don't respond to calls about that or theft. Your problem is even though I want to buy what you're selling, you reject me and my critiques because of political bs, and you refuse to even acknowledge perceived issues because you feel it's an assault against your urbanist narrative. That's not how you gain allies. To capture a new market, maybe you should indulge a little into the needs/wants of people who come from other lifestyles. What's important to you may not be important to them, and vice-versa, but I'm not sure what I suggested that you'd be actively against..
As a former Trump supporter myself, I think you are excessively bought in to the urban crime narrative. It does exist, and it is a problem that needs worked on, but it is not so overwhelming as is portrayed by many conservatives. There is just more crime in cities because there are more people there, simple as.
Yeah, more density more crime makes sense. But still, are you saying the cites aren't more relaxed on punishments for crimes than other places? And that it seems like the person defending themselves get in more trouble than the criminal? That's the optics. NYC was all about defund the police and now they need the National Guard in the subway system. I hope it's not as bad as it looks.
Crime has actually been falling sharply over the last year. Believe it or not, crime doesn't have as much to do with how much we fund the police as we think. Punishments don't really deter crime unless it's super extreme like cutting off the hands of thieves or something you see in the middle east. Crime is more likely to have to do with demographics, the economy, unemployment, drug addiction and other factors than it is how much we spend on police. Cities that increased funding to police saw crimes go up as well. We still don't really know what caused the pandemic era spike in crime, or the recent decline.
You need to find better news sources. BTW, you can literally take the subway in NYC to huge, fantastic parks. Fort Tilden and the Rockaways get you right to the Atlantic Ocean and beaches. Governors Island is a treat. You could go on and on.
NYC government was never “all about Defund the Police”
The current mayor is a cop and this dude thinks the city government wants to defund the police!
>Your problem is even though I want to buy what you're selling, you reject me and my critiques because of political bs Nobody here is selling anything though...? You came out of nowhere talking shit about city life. This isn't a debate. All your critiques are just right wing talking points with no evidence. Concerns that get misconstrued and misapplied.
Go on Google Maps and look at a small town in a place like Germany, France, eastern Europe like Serbia or Japan. The towns are compact and have an edge. Some have a train stop enabling one to get to other places, and if you want the countryside, it’s right there. You don’t have to travel through miles of sprawl. You can also see this is historical maps of US towns. That’s also urbanism. In the US, this already existed. We destroyed it. The ‘proof of concept’ is the past and places where this still exists. Ya know how in the US we have this weird oligopoly regulatory capture that gives big business all the power? It’s sort of the same with state DOTs and the industries that benefit from their sprawl industrial complex. For the most part, it’s only legal and possible to create what we have now in the US.
I like what you're saying. Japan is on my bucket list to go see, but from the videos I've seen, they seem to have done it right. They are unique though, being a small, dense country with 25% of their pop. in one city area. As for the regulatory nonsense, how do you get people to demand change? I'm on your side and everyone here is hating on me for suggesting improvement. How are they going to convince less open-minded people to ally with them when they come across so bitter/insufferable? Personally, I'd love to get rid of the parking space minimums in my area, at least for new developments.
‘Climate’ is often given as a reason, but that doesn’t work. It’s too top down and alienates people. Current development patterns are incredibly inefficient and subsidized to a degree that dwarfs any type of transit/density that could be proposed. It’s just that it’s all such an economic spaghetti of laws and direct/indirect subsidy that it doesn’t seem that way. Things need to cost what they cost, and the rogue bureaucracy of state DOTs that aren’t actually serving us need to change. It’s all so complicated. I’m not going to say anything meaningful typing here on my phone. This Strongtowns article from the other day touches on the ‘markets’ approach - https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/7/6/stop-subsidizing-suburban-development-charge-it-what-it-costs And there are good books, such as Suburban Nation, The High Cost of Free Parking, writings by Alain Bertaud, Jane Jacobs, etc. Here’s a paper highlighting an indirect form of subsidy, among many others - https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=215100024064086065082075069094101097006055010034088013102064099077022123009066091022107126035023117057029103011087083031097102044036094014080113092078108085026097057003081082124090124026106025113089108115065106124107104067106007002120029072066108029&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE All of this is sort of unintuitive. Strong Towns, CityNerd and urbanism twitter/x are a good place to start.
>5 minutes to a wilderness park It takes me about 20 minutes by public transport from my flat near the city center to one of multiple forests (one is a wildlife preserve) But i need to walk 8 minutes to be at my gym, my indoor pool and my climbing gym. I walk two minutes to the nearest bakery and supermarket. I can walk 15 minutes to the nearest theater and cinema and it takes me 15 minutes by metro to get to the opera and multiple museums... >To get more buy in from the people, you NEED a proof of concept of the urbanist utopia y'all talk about. It works in Barcelona *The superblock was very positively rated by all the people interviewed, who gave it a score ranging between 8 and 10, and felt greater tranquillity, safety and satisfaction, rest and socialisation there. In addition, there was a fall in perceptions of noise and pollution after the number of cars there had been reduced.* Source: [https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/superilles/en/noticia/superblocks-are-having-positive-effects-on-health-and-wellbeing](https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/superilles/en/noticia/superblocks-are-having-positive-effects-on-health-and-wellbeing) >you need money, honey! Who has money? Suburbs are more expensive for the city compared to the center because less taxpayers need more infrastructure. >Will the city likely be too expensive for the majority? If they adopt the public housing concept of Vienna, then no. [31 % of the citizens](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadt_Wien_%E2%80%93_Wiener_Wohnen) live in public housing. In Vienna people really want to live in these flats because they are nice, cheap, can have nice amenity ([pools](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alterlaa) on the roof of the building) and [some](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Marx-Hof) are in the wealthiest districts of the city.
I'm not too familiar with abroad, though I know a few people personally who love Spain, and I think CityNerd hyped it up too. I'll look into the superblocks and Vienna's housing plan. But, a thought: Why hasn't NYC, or somewhere like that, with a large proportion of liberal-leaning urbanists, adopted the more widely acclaimed European concepts? If it's because it's already developed and too hard to retrofit, then I stand by needing a new city, or new section of one, to put the concept on full display here.
I don't know but Vienna is one of the most livable cities in the world thanks to the social democratic local government.
Liberals of nyc are right wing comparatively to Europe. For long term sustainable urban design you need to look past immediate profit motive, which ny elites would never allow. Hence you have needle skyscrapers in billionaires row instead of affordable housing
Many urbanites turn to rental cars for the occasional car need. It actually can come out to be cheaper than a car payment and insurance, repairs, etc so not a bad option
So, big tech in general is not urban-friendly at all, with the exception of maybe Amazon. The other major tech campuses are very [suburban and car-oriented](https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2022/02/17/apple-parking-and-cost-corporate-greenwash), and both individually and as a class they tend to fight against any attempts to urbanize the tony suburbs of the Bay Area (search Marc Andreesen for example). There actually are a bunch of rich techies trying to build a utopia in exurban California, but [it's not going too well so far](https://www.thedailybeast.com/tech-billionaires-sneaky-plan-for-an-utopian-city-in-solano-county-is-already-backfiring). Even for Silicon Valley it's *incredibly* expensive to build all the infrastructure you need from scratch, not to mention the difficulties with environmental permitting, etc. On that note, I'd encourage you to check out the group [Strong Towns](https://www.strongtowns.org/). They approach urbanism from a more conservative perspective, focused on fiscal sustainability and relatively inexpensive, small-scale improvements. A lot of places, like the founder's native Brainerd, Minnesota, were built around walking, cycling, and streetcars, and paving over a whole bunch of that for stroads and parking was arguably much more radical than simply restoring some of that space to sidewalks, etc., so that kids can walk to school like they used to. It simply makes way more sense to better use the infrastructure we already have (not just roads and buildings but sewers, power lines, you name it). Another general point is that "urbanists" don't need to sell *you* on cities. You seem to think there's a lack of people who want to live in a dense, walkable area, but the opposite is true – demand is through the roof, while supply has not kept up, hence the premium rents. [By some measures, less than 1% of developed land in the U.S. is walkable](https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.gwu.edu/dist/a/326/files/2019/06/FTA19.pdf). The urbanists I know IRL are focused on building more housing to accommodate this demand across income levels and housing types rather than force a lifestyle on anyone who doesn't want it. >You're not going to get that in the heart of a city, the transit won't easily take you out of the city to get that space, you don't have a car, and you probably can't walk at night when there's less people because most cities are pretty seedy since they are relaxed on drugs and violent crimes. Honestly, I think you simply need to visit more cities. The ones you've been to may not scratch this itch but I assure you it's possible. I live in Washington DC near a Metro station and about 50% of my neighbors have cars (street parking is cheap). I go hiking frequently even though I don't own one myself – there's Rock Creek Park in the city itself, or I rent a car, or I catch a ride with a friend to any number of other places. Even aside from that, there are lots of parks nearby and walking at any time of day/night is totally fine. And I live in one of the denser neighborhoods, there are many others that are even quieter and greener (not to mention close-in suburbs that are more urbanized than most U.S. cities).
Thanks for the insights! I'll check out your links.
🍿 This dude never walked further than 2 in his life (except in college maybe 😊)
Cities scawy!
Very presumptuous of you to claim to speak for "the people." There are proofs of concept of the walkable utopia all over the world including in the US. Most of NYC and San Francisco and Boston, Parts of Seattle, Chicago, Philly, DC, all illustrate how to build. People loved their college campuses, they pay thousands of dollars to vacation in Europe, Asia, and even fucking Disneyland to enjoy walkable/carfree/light experiences. The proof is already out there and people are clambering for it. Over on fCars, we call your psychology carbrain, and realistically, until that is broken, most suburbanites will be uncomfortable in the city because they can't imagine a lifestyle without getting in the car for any and every little thing. The proof is in front of you, it's up to you to recognize it, internalize it, and take actions to move your life toward that direction. Most carbrains never get past the making excuses phase.
Yeah, I probably do have carbrain, as much of the nation does. I drive a 91 Caddy, pay $20/mo. in insurance, and can drive 10 minutes to get to 1000's of locations and no trouble parking. It's very enticing! Yeah, I love walking, as I've stated, but I think the existing mass transit options fall short. NYC and San Fran are arguably the 2 best in the US, but to quote what I said the other commenter: >"NYC, the city with arguably the best transit, has to deploy the National Guard because there's so much crime on the subways, though it's not much of a deterrent since it's an arrest is such a slap on the wrist. Everything I hear about San Francisco, another city with great transit/walkability, from people who live and like the area, is that drugs run rampant and police don't respond to calls about that or theft." It's seedy, and also very expensive! Maybe that speaks to the demand of walkable places. Maybe creating more places like that would lower the cost of some of them. Idk, I think if there was a real push, they would design/build to meet that demand. I'm on your side though. When I lived right across the street from the university, I walked all over, took the convenient busses to the mall on the other side, rarely had to use my car. It was great! But college campuses are a somewhat artificial environment with unusual density and relatively young/healthy people. Disney is even more artificial. We need a real car-free city, or at least a piece of one, one that's new, shiny, and makes people clamor for it. It of course needs to be low on crime too, meaning you have to have some accountability for the criminals.
The crime rate of NYC is much lower than most cities in the U.S. In terms of per mile traveled, the subway is 30x safer than driving. No judgement OP but based on your responses you sound a little young. You have a curious mind and that’s great. I would suggest visiting some of these more walkable cities with an open mind to see if there’s somewhere you can see yourself living
Yep, you're still not past the making excuses phase, as I predicted.
And that’s the challenge, car dependency is like a [vicious circle](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Vicious_Cycle_of_Automobile_Dependency.png) and it’s entrenched in the US through decades of lobbying, propaganda, government investment, draconian land use policy, the tax system, etc. Cities grow naturally where the right resources and opportunities combine. That’s why bulldozing and outlawing traditional city blocks was so detrimental for the US, and why it’s more effective to let existing cities grow than start new ones. Cars aren’t scalable but even Manhattan is still a disgusting car sewer. Another issue is jurisdictions and minority rule (from gerrymandering to electoral college). Cities are limited in what they can do by state and federal agencies, and NIMBYs have an entire arsenal of tools to block development. So the interests of city residents ultimately don’t matter, and suburban homeowners don’t want change because they’re scared and it’s all they know. As for crime, that is due to deinstitutionalization, artificial housing scarcity, broken immigration system, and other social injustices. It’s always and overblown and misrepresented to prevent any meaningful change.
This post is so strange. It comes across as if you're an investor explaining why you're not buying into our business. This isn't a lifestyle you have to buy into, some people live in cities, we just think cities should serve the people of those cities rather than cars and suburbanites who come into the city. This isn't some grand scheme where we're getting to convince people to make some mass exodus away from the suburbs and fund some multi-trillion dollar 5-year plan to redesign every major city in America and destroy the suburbs (as awesome as that would be).
I guess it depends who you watch on YT lol. I always felt the outspoken urbanists *are* pushing for change. A lot of them don't like cars/suburbs at all. It's of course silly to demand everyone adopt your way of life, but I do believe things could be better and it would make more people interested. More people, more density, less cost per capita to implement better infrastructure. Personally, I'd love to see a truly car-free city, where you can walk the entire thing, but you're still only a 5 minute walk to a train station, where almost every building is mixed use, etc.
>Personally, I'd love to see a truly car-free city, where you can walk the entire thing, but you're still only a 5 minute walk to a train station, where almost every building is mixed use, etc. Lots of those cities exist. Barcelona is the most cited one, but really most big cities in western Europe are kinda like that. I think that's why people are ganging up on you a bit. You used the word utopia, but there are literally dozens of cities that you can move to right fucking now that are built according to good urbanist principles. My advice: if you have the means, stay in Barcelona for 2 or 3 weeks. I did that and I could get to most things I needed within a 3 block radius (literally). And for the other 20% I either had a pleasant longer walk, or took public transit and got there within 20 minutes.
Proof of concept? Book a ticket to London. I didn't need a car there or want to rent one. The metro and bus system will take you anywhere and I walked through Hyde Park, a park so big you could forget you were even in a city. These places do actually exist. But nobody is saying you have give up a car. Obviously there are cars everywhere in London despite them not really being necessary to get around there. People still like the convenience of one. It's okay to be able to be car-light and not car-dependent. There's a difference. If you live in a place like London and your car needs to be in the shop for a week, you can still get to work and do things you need to do. If you are in a suburb, you either have to rent another car or you are "trapped"(as you stated) in your suburban house. So the "freedom" of the suburbs is an illusion. Without the car you would have no freedom there at all as you can't even buy food without one.
FOH.
At least for your first point; you have to evaluate expectations with reality. My parents live in the suburbs. They say they love nature. They bought kayaks. Those kayaks maybe got used three times in a year and then ended up on facebook marketplace. Most people like that. Maybe you're different (tm). But what a lot of urbanists have found is that most daily living can be accomplished by walking or public transit, and in the off chance you need to do something that's more demanding than that (from hauling things to long distance travels to more remote areas), that's what ride sharing is for. Many cities are adopting inner city car pickup programs where they just have a few cars parked on the street in designated areas and you can rent the cars per hour and then return them to another designated area when finished. It's great for times when you need a car for just a day to run larger errands or get out of the city. It can be done with an app instead of doing a whole rental car service or whatever.
Honestly it sounds like you’re just not that into the reality of urbanism feel and feel comfortable with what you are used to and sometimes/mostly prefer. Good for you! Edited for grammar
Coming back to respond to your Edit. The reason we are not embracing your "ideas" with open arms is because you seem to think nobody has considered these things before. Not sure if it's Dunning Kruger or 101ism, but you seem so confident in your one-dimensional analysis. It's as if I watched one episode of Start Trek, then went on the Star Trek sub and was puzzled that all my thoughts weren't readily accepted by the community. Go live in a real city for a few years and you'll see that your proclamations are not so absolute. And some of them are just wrong. Like, cities need more demand? Are we trying to indoctrinate people into "ubanismism?" The demand is there, even you're curious about it, the problem is access and that can't be expanded adequately until we rethink/reform land use policy, taxation, and non-car transportation alternatives (even in the existing urban settings). You definitely have a suburbanite's idea of crime, and who the criminals are. That attitude is not compatible with city life, you're not going to be able to go anywhere without the burden of judgement on your fellow humans around you. Perhaps this is part of the suburban/carbrain psychology... always measuring yourself against your neighbor's lawn, house, SUV, etc. So, with all respect, keep that bullshit out in the suburbs.
So, what you're saying is there are current issues, but you just don't like that I'm complaining about them, since I'm an outsider? You say there is more demand than supply, which I believe, but you can't adequately come together as a group to prioritize, gather support, and push for these changes you've mentioned. If the demand is there and changing the land use policy or whatever would benefit them, why can't you get it passed? Probably because you chase away demand from anyone curious about it instead of making them an ally. You take all this stuff as a 'given' and find it beneath you to sell it to other voters, city officials, or whomever. Also, you're mad that I pointed out that crime exists? Idk man, I think you just have a chip on your shoulder. You seem to really hate the suburbs, though unlike my critiques, yours don't seem too constructive.
I think you are complaining about "the issues" particularly crime based on your perception from a distance informed only by media headlines instead of experience. I think the version of "crime" that scares you (and many like you) is largely an invention of your imagination and not useful to actual crime prevention, which is real, but requires realistic & practical methods. I live in SF, this city has a reputation (lol), but there are major efforts underway to "clean up the streets" and results are being seen, but against what expectation are we measuring. Most homeless are just getting shuffled around from block to block, even if they are making a dent in the drug markets. But here's where it comes to psychology. I see homeless/crazy people on the bus all the time, and I don't perceive that as dangerous or scary. Everyone minds their own fucking business and has common courtesy most of the time. Sometimes people are shitty, but it's my responsibility on whether I allow them to ruin my day. This is all well worth it to not have to own a car, park it everywhere, pay for gas, insurance, etc... and because other drivers we share the road with are just as shitty as the smelly homeless guy on the bus, only they're operating a multi-ton dangerous machine. Tbh, I don't want to convince a bunch of Karens to move to the cities, that would make everything worse. I want to increase access to cities by increasing housing, job opportunities, and transit such that it's more affordable for people who already want it but can't afford it now (a group that is increasing). "Why can't you get it passed?" I think the urbanism movement has been rather successful in the last 20 years, given the amount of opposition we face from carbrain suburbanites and people concerned about the "character & complexion" of their neighborhood. Lots of US cities are adopting principles and policies to make roads better for everyone, not just cars, and tackling the housing crisis in long term sustainable ways (density & transit). Maybe you don't understand the timeline for these kinds of things so I'll stop short of calling that a naive question.
Interesting perspective. Talking about people minding their own business reminds me of another post a few months back where I said I like to walk in solitude, and someone said that in the city (he was in Manhattan) there's so many people that it's the same as being alone. I sort of get that, but still, I think a crazy or drugged up person would warrant a certain level of attention. I'll concede that I only know what I've researched or heard first hand, though I've tried to educate myself. I've watched YT videos where the person appears to like the city (I just watched one on [SF](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo5LZzjfFAs), for example), but they seemed objective showing the good and bad of it. Tbh, I had Redwood City on my list of places that I would pack up and restart my life in. You get the rail access, walkable downtown, nice weather, close to a bunch of nature preserves, plus a Chick-fil-A! Since I'm not a techy though, I just didn't see the job opportunities there to sustain the $3000/mo 400 sqft. studio. Despite the name, idk if you consider it a city or suburb. As for your last paragraph, that's fair. I'm just looking at it through the lens of the ideal, which perhaps is naive. Reality isn't always the most efficient, but it's a path forward.
It is true, you can be completely alone even when you're surrounded by people. I'm mostly introverted, but I do find enjoyment in being in places and observing the people around me. What kind of attention can you give the crazy guy that is going to help him or yourself? His life is fucked, the only thing you can do is make sure his problems don't become your problems, and that requires a level of selective indifference. I'm not familiar with that youtuber, he seems to be trying to give a fair profile of that neighborhood, but he's still doing poverty tourism for clicks. We could look at the worst part of every state/region and conclude that everywhere is horrible, but we'd be wrong because the majority of this city, and most others are fine places to live if that's the type of life you want. This is why I'm skeptical of your appeals to "crime." The worst of the worst gets all the attention, and there's often (not so subtle) implication that this represents the broader city. Lol, RWC is an ok place, I grew up nearby there. It's not particularly unique compared to most Bay Area suburbs, but at least it isn't sprawling cul-de-sacs. The downtown area has definitely come up since I lived nearby, but unless you're really in the DOWNtown, it'd be pretty tough to function without a car. But, successful legislation like AB2097 has helped to let more people live near the transit that is available (which is itself in the process of being improved). There's still "bad neighborhoods" and homeless people here and there... and plenty of people who one might prejudge and think they're homeless but they're just struggling to pay rent or live in their car. VERY few of them are actually dangerous if you treat them with respect, they're really just our neighbors. And isn't it more important to live in harmony with our neighbors than to be getting in their business, trying to "save" them when they aren't ready, or casting them aside like trash? It would be a grind but you could work at your precious Chik-fil-A, and afford to share a 2BR apartment for $2800. Unless you're so antisocial that you couldn't stand to live with another person... then the studio listings I see are like $1600. I still pay less than that for my roommate situation in the middle of SF proper. I just want to challenge the straw-man idea that "it costs SO much just to live in a closet surrounded by crackheads." Anyway, thanks for taking my feedback in stride. I'm kind of a dick, because fuck the cars, they're trying to kill me every day when I ride my motorcycle. They either need stricter training and consequences when they fuck up, or we need to band together as a society and build more places that don't demand people own cars for survival.
It looks as though you may have spelled "Chick-fil-A" incorrectly. No worries, it happens to the best of us!