Myself having been born in the 70s this article didn't make much sense. Cars are nice, to be sure, but so is having clean air, a sustainable future and not spending decades of my life commuting in one.
Also living in such a city (silicon valley), I see what you mean.
If I live near a bus/light rain/caltrain line whose terminus is also near work, then it's not such a big deal. Also, if I go during commuting hours it can be comparable, but not always.
If I lived in south-central San Jose, then it would be better to get a car, perhaps even during commute hours. If I lived in Tracey or Stockton, taking the ACE train would be much preferable, even if it were longer since I could read, do what ever; a car would mean 90+ minutes of commuting. A co-worker has recently taken to practicing electric guitar on the ACE.
Of course, this is all anecdotal, and so is your statement. I have no idea how it works in non-US cities.
Fantastic article. Having been born in the 80s, I find the author's point about younger generations not seeing the "magic" of automobiles fairly accurate.
People moved to the burbs because federal and state policy systematically subsidized and encouraged it.
William Whyte wrote about the genesis of suburbia. It was not really a mass movement of preference. Businesses and jobs moved, the infrastructure moved, and people followed.
Also, machine politics and race conflict was destroying the cities, as the article alludes. Suburbia is much more about racial apartheid than is commonly acknowledged. The most functional urban cities, such as Portland, just happen to be the most white.
> tax-sucking mass-transit projects.
What does he think suburbia is? It's a massive government subsidized experiment that started in the 40s. Without federal highways and the systematic subsidization of house construction and ownership suburbia wouldn't exist. The American development patterns of the preceding 50 years would probably have continued.
To be more specific (since I have been downvoted), Kipling was an early adopter of the motor car. At the time he wasn't impressed enough to include them in his list of "great things" quoted by the article.
Of course that may be poetic license, since he's putting the words into the mouth of someone who would not necessarily have seen a car. Alternatively it may be a matter of Kipling's perception of the potential for the vehicle.
Still, I thought it was interesting that the words of someone who was in fact remarkably gung-ho about the motor car were being used in this fashion.
