Driving has lost its cool for young Americans
01-01-12, 02:40 PM
#31
Lexus Fanatic
01-01-12, 02:48 PM
#32
Moderator: LFA, Clubhouse
I've written about this in many threads. This is happening not just in the US but in Japan, where kids these days just want the newest smartphone or other technological gadget rather than cars, and even when they do buy cars, they want something economical and low-mpg.
Expense is certainly an issue. Safety regulations and technology in support of safety has raised the cost of cars by an absurd amount. While safety benefits society, there is also significant negative impact on society because of the higher financials. Safety also adds weight which in turn reduces mpg which increases operating cost. Gas itself is also more costly, and as others have mentioned, insurance costs are higher. It's harder to fix those last two than the former, but it can still be done.
We also see consistently that government has been a major factor in making cars less appealing. I already mentioned safety regulations increasing weight and cost. Others mention public transportation. It should be no surprise to anyone if big-government legislators and bureaucrats actually seek to make cars less appealing, since cars represent freedom and that's what big government seeks to curtail. Dependency of any type gives government more power, and certainly dependency on public transportation is a very powerful influence. By getting Americans to give up the freedom they get from their cars and herding them as if cattle on buses and subways and trains, the government consolidates power and expands its bureaucracy.
Another perfect example of government ineptitude is in traffic. This is also why I find it so funny that sometimes, when I complain about rising taxes, someone brings up roads and highways and how we need taxes to pay for them. Well, in our current day, roads and highways are probably the biggest example of government ineptitude in managing resources. Every day during rush hours we have absurd amounts of traffic, often stop-and-go for miles, on highways in cities across America. How is that any different than the lines for bread in Soviet Russia? And what this traffic has done is ruin the driving experience for millions of Americans. It's also caused automotive manufacturers to concentrate on interior cabin distractions, luxury, buffering from the road - all those things that make cars heavier, more costly, and less fun to drive.
The environmental movement isn't helpful either, especially when it comes from progressive indoctrination in our schools at a young age. I had a neighbor mention to me that he had to go speak to the principal of his daughter's public grade school after her teacher often went on long diatribes about the evils of oil companies and cars causing global warming that was going to destroy the Earth. After this type of hippie brainwashing, is it any surprise that cars (and especially sporty ones) aren't considered to be cool by young people anymore?
Like I said, hopefully the FT-86 can help change people's interests. Car manufacturers in general need to get back to offering inexpensive cars that are fun to drive. That's where it all starts - the exposure as well as the ability to actually experience. For far too long, car companies in their performance offerings involve themselves in meaningless horsepower wars and other spec time / lap time battles and miss the forest for the trees, because all that's done is increase cost and weight and done nothing for "fun to drive". If there's nothing interesting and accessible for the kids who will make up our next generations, car enthusiasm cannot be expected to continue.
Happy New Year's everyone - for our sakes, let's hope it's a good one for inexpensive sporty cars too.
Expense is certainly an issue. Safety regulations and technology in support of safety has raised the cost of cars by an absurd amount. While safety benefits society, there is also significant negative impact on society because of the higher financials. Safety also adds weight which in turn reduces mpg which increases operating cost. Gas itself is also more costly, and as others have mentioned, insurance costs are higher. It's harder to fix those last two than the former, but it can still be done.
We also see consistently that government has been a major factor in making cars less appealing. I already mentioned safety regulations increasing weight and cost. Others mention public transportation. It should be no surprise to anyone if big-government legislators and bureaucrats actually seek to make cars less appealing, since cars represent freedom and that's what big government seeks to curtail. Dependency of any type gives government more power, and certainly dependency on public transportation is a very powerful influence. By getting Americans to give up the freedom they get from their cars and herding them as if cattle on buses and subways and trains, the government consolidates power and expands its bureaucracy.
Another perfect example of government ineptitude is in traffic. This is also why I find it so funny that sometimes, when I complain about rising taxes, someone brings up roads and highways and how we need taxes to pay for them. Well, in our current day, roads and highways are probably the biggest example of government ineptitude in managing resources. Every day during rush hours we have absurd amounts of traffic, often stop-and-go for miles, on highways in cities across America. How is that any different than the lines for bread in Soviet Russia? And what this traffic has done is ruin the driving experience for millions of Americans. It's also caused automotive manufacturers to concentrate on interior cabin distractions, luxury, buffering from the road - all those things that make cars heavier, more costly, and less fun to drive.
The environmental movement isn't helpful either, especially when it comes from progressive indoctrination in our schools at a young age. I had a neighbor mention to me that he had to go speak to the principal of his daughter's public grade school after her teacher often went on long diatribes about the evils of oil companies and cars causing global warming that was going to destroy the Earth. After this type of hippie brainwashing, is it any surprise that cars (and especially sporty ones) aren't considered to be cool by young people anymore?
Like I said, hopefully the FT-86 can help change people's interests. Car manufacturers in general need to get back to offering inexpensive cars that are fun to drive. That's where it all starts - the exposure as well as the ability to actually experience. For far too long, car companies in their performance offerings involve themselves in meaningless horsepower wars and other spec time / lap time battles and miss the forest for the trees, because all that's done is increase cost and weight and done nothing for "fun to drive". If there's nothing interesting and accessible for the kids who will make up our next generations, car enthusiasm cannot be expected to continue.
Happy New Year's everyone - for our sakes, let's hope it's a good one for inexpensive sporty cars too.
01-02-12, 10:44 AM
#33
It really depends on where you live. We don't have good public transportation, so driving everywhere is your only option in most cases. I do see a lot of kids who have no intention of ever driving, but they won't make it that far without a car here. High insurance cost, gas prices, and expensive car repairs make it hard for people these days to afford owning a car in this economy too.
Insurance is the one reason I'm not driving a nice/fast car like a C5 Corvette, Mercedes S600, or a BMW 335i. My 93 SC300 is so expensive to keep around, even with my perfect driving record and decent grades. I'd take public transportation if we had a good system around here, but that's not the case.
Insurance is the one reason I'm not driving a nice/fast car like a C5 Corvette, Mercedes S600, or a BMW 335i. My 93 SC300 is so expensive to keep around, even with my perfect driving record and decent grades. I'd take public transportation if we had a good system around here, but that's not the case.
01-03-12, 08:07 AM
#34
Out of Warranty
The US is unique when compared to Europe and Asia in that our cities grew up with the automobile. Elsewhere cities and roadways were well established centuries before the car was even an option. The Eastern Seaboard reflects this same urban culture, with cities based on a mass transit system, rather than having one impressed upon them. The rest of the US (with the exception of metro Chicago), grew up with no real need for easy access. We could get in our cars and drive to the grocery, and the dry cleaner. It didn't matter that they were a mile or two away, we could hop in the car and reach them in minutes - maybe even bypassing a couple other closer stores on the way to our favorites. Our jobs were handled in much the same way. Most of us didn't consider a ten or twenty mile drive to work every day when we bought our homes, we lived where we wanted and made the decision about our work location entirely separately.
Most urban planners today are showcasing designs for enormous buildings that will feature living, shopping, and commercial spaces under one very large roof, practically eliminating the need to leave the building. Literally cities unto themselves, these complexes will combine the office building, shopping mall, and condo complex with public facilities like theaters, restaurants, libraries, educational facilities, hotels, parks, playgrounds, even sports venues in a single mall-like complex. Think Mall of America, squared.
The result will be living spaces that are vastly more energy efficient, and those that will eliminate the regular use of the private automobile. Whether they use moving sidewalks or electric trams to move people over longer distances within the building, or they rely on newer technology such as internet and intranet connections to obviate the need for most travel for work, shopping and entertainment, they will literally re-create the small town of sixty or seventy years ago with single buildings with populations in the tens of thousands.
An examination of our retrofuture - the imagined future of years past - reveals that we always think in terms of technology that hasn't arrived, rather than a synergy of the technology at hand. We shouldn't waste our time with spaceports and flying cars, but take a hard look at making our urban centers more efficient. If you could be at work in ten minutes, or in a shopping mall or theater in a similar amount of time - all without getting in a car or conventional public transit, what differences would that make to your lifestyle? By emphasizing convenience and proximity, how many more hours would you have in your day for family, friends, and hobbies?
Will our generation see this? Probably. Not mine, but yours. Efficiency in terms of time and resource consumption will eventually demand it.
Most urban planners today are showcasing designs for enormous buildings that will feature living, shopping, and commercial spaces under one very large roof, practically eliminating the need to leave the building. Literally cities unto themselves, these complexes will combine the office building, shopping mall, and condo complex with public facilities like theaters, restaurants, libraries, educational facilities, hotels, parks, playgrounds, even sports venues in a single mall-like complex. Think Mall of America, squared.
The result will be living spaces that are vastly more energy efficient, and those that will eliminate the regular use of the private automobile. Whether they use moving sidewalks or electric trams to move people over longer distances within the building, or they rely on newer technology such as internet and intranet connections to obviate the need for most travel for work, shopping and entertainment, they will literally re-create the small town of sixty or seventy years ago with single buildings with populations in the tens of thousands.
An examination of our retrofuture - the imagined future of years past - reveals that we always think in terms of technology that hasn't arrived, rather than a synergy of the technology at hand. We shouldn't waste our time with spaceports and flying cars, but take a hard look at making our urban centers more efficient. If you could be at work in ten minutes, or in a shopping mall or theater in a similar amount of time - all without getting in a car or conventional public transit, what differences would that make to your lifestyle? By emphasizing convenience and proximity, how many more hours would you have in your day for family, friends, and hobbies?
Will our generation see this? Probably. Not mine, but yours. Efficiency in terms of time and resource consumption will eventually demand it.
01-03-12, 08:32 AM
#35
Lexus Test Driver
The US is unique when compared to Europe and Asia in that our cities grew up with the automobile. Elsewhere cities and roadways were well established centuries before the car was even an option. The Eastern Seaboard reflects this same urban culture, with cities based on a mass transit system, rather than having one impressed upon them. The rest of the US (with the exception of metro Chicago), grew up with no real need for easy access. We could get in our cars and drive to the grocery, and the dry cleaner. It didn't matter that they were a mile or two away, we could hop in the car and reach them in minutes - maybe even bypassing a couple other closer stores on the way to our favorites. Our jobs were handled in much the same way. Most of us didn't consider a ten or twenty mile drive to work every day when we bought our homes, we lived where we wanted and made the decision about our work location entirely separately.
Most urban planners today are showcasing designs for enormous buildings that will feature living, shopping, and commercial spaces under one very large roof, practically eliminating the need to leave the building. Literally cities unto themselves, these complexes will combine the office building, shopping mall, and condo complex with public facilities like theaters, restaurants, libraries, educational facilities, hotels, parks, playgrounds, even sports venues in a single mall-like complex. Think Mall of America, squared.
The result will be living spaces that are vastly more energy efficient, and those that will eliminate the regular use of the private automobile. Whether they use moving sidewalks or electric trams to move people over longer distances within the building, or they rely on newer technology such as internet and intranet connections to obviate the need for most travel for work, shopping and entertainment, they will literally re-create the small town of sixty or seventy years ago with single buildings with populations in the tens of thousands.
An examination of our retrofuture - the imagined future of years past - reveals that we always think in terms of technology that hasn't arrived, rather than a synergy of the technology at hand. We shouldn't waste our time with spaceports and flying cars, but take a hard look at making our urban centers more efficient. If you could be at work in ten minutes, or in a shopping mall or theater in a similar amount of time - all without getting in a car or conventional public transit, what differences would that make to your lifestyle? By emphasizing convenience and proximity, how many more hours would you have in your day for family, friends, and hobbies?
Will our generation see this? Probably. Not mine, but yours. Efficiency in terms of time and resource consumption will eventually demand it.
Most urban planners today are showcasing designs for enormous buildings that will feature living, shopping, and commercial spaces under one very large roof, practically eliminating the need to leave the building. Literally cities unto themselves, these complexes will combine the office building, shopping mall, and condo complex with public facilities like theaters, restaurants, libraries, educational facilities, hotels, parks, playgrounds, even sports venues in a single mall-like complex. Think Mall of America, squared.
The result will be living spaces that are vastly more energy efficient, and those that will eliminate the regular use of the private automobile. Whether they use moving sidewalks or electric trams to move people over longer distances within the building, or they rely on newer technology such as internet and intranet connections to obviate the need for most travel for work, shopping and entertainment, they will literally re-create the small town of sixty or seventy years ago with single buildings with populations in the tens of thousands.
An examination of our retrofuture - the imagined future of years past - reveals that we always think in terms of technology that hasn't arrived, rather than a synergy of the technology at hand. We shouldn't waste our time with spaceports and flying cars, but take a hard look at making our urban centers more efficient. If you could be at work in ten minutes, or in a shopping mall or theater in a similar amount of time - all without getting in a car or conventional public transit, what differences would that make to your lifestyle? By emphasizing convenience and proximity, how many more hours would you have in your day for family, friends, and hobbies?
Will our generation see this? Probably. Not mine, but yours. Efficiency in terms of time and resource consumption will eventually demand it.
01-03-12, 10:46 AM
#36
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
01-03-12, 10:46 AM
#37
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
01-04-12, 02:31 PM
#38
Lexus Champion
A lot of my newer friends all live in Oakland/SF - and most of them don't own cars - they use bikes to get around. Also, in SF parking is absurdly expensive - they're thinking of now getting rid of free parking in most parts, and if you don't carpool or take BART or the bus/ferry to get across the bay, you're paying a $6 bridge toll.
My plan is to move from the suburbs to be closer to work and do the same - but I'll keep my 1LS running until I upgrade to something newer in a year or so - maybe a RXh?
My plan is to move from the suburbs to be closer to work and do the same - but I'll keep my 1LS running until I upgrade to something newer in a year or so - maybe a RXh?
Last edited by nthach; 01-04-12 at 02:34 PM.
01-04-12, 06:41 PM
#41
The US is unique when compared to Europe and Asia in that our cities grew up with the automobile. Elsewhere cities and roadways were well established centuries before the car was even an option. The Eastern Seaboard reflects this same urban culture, with cities based on a mass transit system, rather than having one impressed upon them. The rest of the US (with the exception of metro Chicago), grew up with no real need for easy access. We could get in our cars and drive to the grocery, and the dry cleaner. It didn't matter that they were a mile or two away, we could hop in the car and reach them in minutes - maybe even bypassing a couple other closer stores on the way to our favorites. Our jobs were handled in much the same way. Most of us didn't consider a ten or twenty mile drive to work every day when we bought our homes, we lived where we wanted and made the decision about our work location entirely separately.
Most urban planners today are showcasing designs for enormous buildings that will feature living, shopping, and commercial spaces under one very large roof, practically eliminating the need to leave the building. Literally cities unto themselves, these complexes will combine the office building, shopping mall, and condo complex with public facilities like theaters, restaurants, libraries, educational facilities, hotels, parks, playgrounds, even sports venues in a single mall-like complex. Think Mall of America, squared.
The result will be living spaces that are vastly more energy efficient, and those that will eliminate the regular use of the private automobile. Whether they use moving sidewalks or electric trams to move people over longer distances within the building, or they rely on newer technology such as internet and intranet connections to obviate the need for most travel for work, shopping and entertainment, they will literally re-create the small town of sixty or seventy years ago with single buildings with populations in the tens of thousands.
An examination of our retrofuture - the imagined future of years past - reveals that we always think in terms of technology that hasn't arrived, rather than a synergy of the technology at hand. We shouldn't waste our time with spaceports and flying cars, but take a hard look at making our urban centers more efficient. If you could be at work in ten minutes, or in a shopping mall or theater in a similar amount of time - all without getting in a car or conventional public transit, what differences would that make to your lifestyle? By emphasizing convenience and proximity, how many more hours would you have in your day for family, friends, and hobbies?
Will our generation see this? Probably. Not mine, but yours. Efficiency in terms of time and resource consumption will eventually demand it.
Most urban planners today are showcasing designs for enormous buildings that will feature living, shopping, and commercial spaces under one very large roof, practically eliminating the need to leave the building. Literally cities unto themselves, these complexes will combine the office building, shopping mall, and condo complex with public facilities like theaters, restaurants, libraries, educational facilities, hotels, parks, playgrounds, even sports venues in a single mall-like complex. Think Mall of America, squared.
The result will be living spaces that are vastly more energy efficient, and those that will eliminate the regular use of the private automobile. Whether they use moving sidewalks or electric trams to move people over longer distances within the building, or they rely on newer technology such as internet and intranet connections to obviate the need for most travel for work, shopping and entertainment, they will literally re-create the small town of sixty or seventy years ago with single buildings with populations in the tens of thousands.
An examination of our retrofuture - the imagined future of years past - reveals that we always think in terms of technology that hasn't arrived, rather than a synergy of the technology at hand. We shouldn't waste our time with spaceports and flying cars, but take a hard look at making our urban centers more efficient. If you could be at work in ten minutes, or in a shopping mall or theater in a similar amount of time - all without getting in a car or conventional public transit, what differences would that make to your lifestyle? By emphasizing convenience and proximity, how many more hours would you have in your day for family, friends, and hobbies?
Will our generation see this? Probably. Not mine, but yours. Efficiency in terms of time and resource consumption will eventually demand it.
.
01-05-12, 10:40 PM
#42
Lead Lap
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having lived in California for 20 years, I really wonder if the car-centric lifestyle is sustainable for humans in the long term. I'm not sure I buy the big-government conspiracy theory in discouraging car use. Although I love cars (check my signature), this is just a grossly inefficient use of natural resources. City people tend to be the least interested in cars, and the US population is finally beginning to catch on to our overpopulation reality.
The city-in-a-building model is already being heavily used in some cities. Due to geography and high land cost, the only way for a developer in Hong Kong to profit is to build up. I shot the attached picture in Tseung Kwan O, considered a newer suburban residential area.
The bases of these buildings are complete malls, and below would often be a metro station. The lifts, trains and buses kill off any necessity for an automobile. Buying parking stalls in nice residential complexes can cost nearly as much as an actual living unit.
One interesting phenomenon that has popped up in HK is the "wall effect". When a developer tries to maximize its allowed plot ratio, the result is a giant 50-storey slab that suffocates air and wind flow. It causes an uncomfortable heat island effect at the street level and people are calling for new developments to have sufficient spacing between towers.
The city-in-a-building model is already being heavily used in some cities. Due to geography and high land cost, the only way for a developer in Hong Kong to profit is to build up. I shot the attached picture in Tseung Kwan O, considered a newer suburban residential area.
The bases of these buildings are complete malls, and below would often be a metro station. The lifts, trains and buses kill off any necessity for an automobile. Buying parking stalls in nice residential complexes can cost nearly as much as an actual living unit.
One interesting phenomenon that has popped up in HK is the "wall effect". When a developer tries to maximize its allowed plot ratio, the result is a giant 50-storey slab that suffocates air and wind flow. It causes an uncomfortable heat island effect at the street level and people are calling for new developments to have sufficient spacing between towers.
Last edited by superchan7; 01-05-12 at 10:52 PM.
01-06-12, 10:02 AM
#44
Lexus Champion
The situation in Hong Kong is interesting. With limited available land-space and difficult geography, it is indeed faced with a dilemma on how to use the only available space they have.
Some supply and demand is in effect over there............and any Hong Kong resident or Cantonese person (like you superchan7 or maybe romini, BNR34 and the other Canto peeps) knows about.
This supply and demand is the reason why parking over at Hang Lung Centre near Gloucester Road can go as high as a staggering HKD$40 per hour.
Maybe HK people can afford it but a Filipino, well...........that 40 in Philippine pesos is normally a flat rate parking and some locals consider it s expensive.
Btw, some places in Hong Kong are a mixed-use configuration. Areas like Telford, IFC, Union Square Kowloon, etc are complete with residential, hotel, supermarket, shopping, malls, cinemas, transport hubs ALL INTO ONE.
Also, the greater the population density of a territory, the more their pressured to build vertically.
BUT DAMN, I agree with you superchan7 that sometimes, it can go too far.
Like those walled building blocks along TAI KOK TSUI 大角嘴
Disgusting
Some supply and demand is in effect over there............and any Hong Kong resident or Cantonese person (like you superchan7 or maybe romini, BNR34 and the other Canto peeps) knows about.
This supply and demand is the reason why parking over at Hang Lung Centre near Gloucester Road can go as high as a staggering HKD$40 per hour.
Maybe HK people can afford it but a Filipino, well...........that 40 in Philippine pesos is normally a flat rate parking and some locals consider it s expensive.
Btw, some places in Hong Kong are a mixed-use configuration. Areas like Telford, IFC, Union Square Kowloon, etc are complete with residential, hotel, supermarket, shopping, malls, cinemas, transport hubs ALL INTO ONE.
Also, the greater the population density of a territory, the more their pressured to build vertically.
BUT DAMN, I agree with you superchan7 that sometimes, it can go too far.
Like those walled building blocks along TAI KOK TSUI 大角嘴
Disgusting
01-06-12, 01:54 PM
#45
Boardroom Thug
Having lived in California for 20 years, I really wonder if the car-centric lifestyle is sustainable for humans in the long term. I'm not sure I buy the big-government conspiracy theory in discouraging car use. Although I love cars (check my signature), this is just a grossly inefficient use of natural resources. City people tend to be the least interested in cars, and the US population is finally beginning to catch on to our overpopulation reality.
.
.
As much as I love the city, I do not want to raise my kids there. I am happy they have a couple acres to run around.
Sustainability is not a question as long as innovation continues, you can make a car run with the smoke from a fire if you want to.