Forgive me but... we call them "trains," they run on time, rarely crash and usually go where we want them to -- once the government(s) agrees to build them that is!
Seriously I do wonder, though, if the design of townships like yours will be directly affected by the rise of AV's. It would seem to make sense for Waymo and others to effectively lease depots (holding pens?) for when you and your fellow travelers need to hail a car. Are you/we effectively trading your individual garage space for a collective AV parking lot on the outskirts of town? And whether that development would compare favorably to investing in more intercity trains?
It will keep most of our (North America's) towns shitty.
I don't understand why everyone wants to live in these horrible suburbs with grass you have to mow and a pool that every single person needs to build. I seriously have never once understood suburbs. I get living on 5+ acres, you got stuff you can build and do (tree houses, chicken coups, etc) but what is the point of putting yourself somewhere with nowhere you can walk and nowhere you can build?
Also, can we talk about grass for a second? Why? Just why do we do it at all? Trees, shrubs, and flowers are so much nicer and easier, why do we need to make bright green rectangles with most of our lawns?
How can you simultaneously say "a pool that every single person needs to build" and "nowhere you can build"?
The appeal of the suburbs is pretty obvious. There's enough room for you to build a bigger house, some out structures like pools and sheds, and some grass for your kids/dog to play in. The downside of that is it isn't walkable. That downside might not make it worth it for you, but it's worth it for others.
I think for a lot of people the appeal of the suburbs is mostly "I could get a mortgage and I can commute to my job". Living in walkable areas in cities is really expensive (maybe because lots of people want to do it but they've been illegal to build for most of the last century?)
I'm looking at homes and as housing prices have gone up 60% over the last 5 years where I am it's a question of "uggg do I just keep paying rent in the city centre forever or do I buy a place where I can afford one, which is mostly shittacular suburbs". I think a lot of other people are there by necessity, not choice, as well.
The GP makes a good point actually because in that background to this decision there's always "screw this, I'll just move way out in the middle of nowhere and get a bunch of cheap land and a giant house, and work remote" but having a spouse who can't work remote affects that. The suburbs are the worst of both worlds.
My kids, dog, and friends seem to enjoy hanging out on my grass more than they'd enjoy hanging out on some trees, shrubs, and flowers. "Come on over and hang out in the shrubbery while I bar-b-que..."
As a very much secondary benefit, I get some exercise and a minor outdoor hobby.
Except for the fact that due to historical precedent, our society isn't built in a way that enables affordable urban life outside of areas that have been historically considered blighted. If we had more urban spaces, there would be more cities that are affordable to the middle class, whereas now, the places that are affordable to the middle class are largely suburbs.
> I don't understand why everyone wants to live in these horrible suburbs...
Money. Lack of.
In lots of US metro areas, the suburbs are the only route for working and middle classes to own property and hopefully pay it off before or by retirement, and only have to worry about property taxes (capped for over-65 homeowners in some states) and maintenance thereafter.
Where in-town living is not more expensive than suburbs, city politics driving assessments plus millage rates and aging building maintenance of generally crappy US construction practices make for a much more volatile financial picture long-term for retired urban dwellers.
In a suburb, on their own lot, it feels like they have more control because they don't have to negotiate as part of a group or even participate within a group for basic maintenance, and property taxes are generally not as high per unit area. Even crappy construction practices in SFH's can be remedied for all but the most egregious cases. When a contractor screws up a boiler installation in a high-rise condo, it's a massive capital investment and logistical headache for all the residents when that boiler calls it quits early, especially if replacement requires some demo to get at and extract the boiler, DIY is not an option, and pipefitters are not cheap. A home hot water heater replacement isn't a financial picnic for working and middle class homeowners, but it is still within the DIY realm for those willing to put in the time to save precious capital.
The operating environment looking forward for the next few decades in the US is most of the population is scarce on capital but have time (for example, retired working and middle class), a substantial portion are scarce on capital and time (for example, households with children), and any solutions (like moving more people into urban areas) that involve capital they don't have are non-starters. Yes, we should be encouraging people to move into urban areas in the US, because the per capita energy expenditures are much lower, environmental impact per capita are lower, people are given greater opportunities to form and maintain communities, etc., but the way incentives are currently structured in the US prevent that from starting.
Just by participating on HN statistically makes it likely you and I are in a rarefied environment where we don't have our noses rubbed into that reality I described above every single day, but we're a tiny, tiny fraction of the US, not to mention humanity, and moving the needle to make a difference in the world requires that we figure out solutions that sit on the other side of that fraction.
What if you want two dogs, or a spare bedroom and kitchen for your in laws, or you have more than one kid? In an urban area this would be prohibitively expensive for most. Even for a small home the suburbs are often cheaper than living in the city, and for a larger home they are much cheaper, while still being close enough to have access to many of the benefits of urban living.
Neighborhood association covenants actually do regulate a lot of those things especially chickens and other livestock. It seems that more are relenting to allowing people to keep a few chickens, but certainly goats, pigs and other farm animals are out of the question. Pools, lawns and landscaping are often subject to rules as well.
I've heard of these HOAs, but I've lived in the 'burbs most of my 50+ years and I've never had one. Clearly some people like HOAs or they wouldn't exist.
Seriously I do wonder, though, if the design of townships like yours will be directly affected by the rise of AV's. It would seem to make sense for Waymo and others to effectively lease depots (holding pens?) for when you and your fellow travelers need to hail a car. Are you/we effectively trading your individual garage space for a collective AV parking lot on the outskirts of town? And whether that development would compare favorably to investing in more intercity trains?