Comments on: Car-less

By: Robert S. Porter

Robert S. Porter — Thu, 14 May 2009 22:17:45 +0000

Well yes, but it’s about a really ugly hippie commune, which the NYT describes as an “upscale community”, right next to an actually beautiful small city (Freiburg).

I think Buzzcut is on to something. Likely the supposed 16% savings would be put towards larger mortgages due to increased land costs.

By: Brian Knudsen

Brian Knudsen — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:28:49 +0000

Buzzcut,

For Pete’s sake. Read the NYT article. It is about a German carless SUBURB. Again, a SUBURB. Your whole binary way of thinking (i.e. that everyone outside of Manhattan has to drive everywhere) is just plain wrong. The whole point of the Times article is that it is possible to design places that make driving less necessary (or even unneccesary) but that still permit moderate densities and reasonably-priced stand alone homes. But, I suppose your car-love and city-hate make you deaf to that argument.

By: Buzzcut

Buzzcut — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:38:38 +0000

That 25% figure is just stupid. If you look at areas that accomodate the carless, their real estate prices are out of sight. So it’s not an apples to apples comparison.

In another words, yeah, you can save money by being carless in Manhattan… but you’re paying a huge premium to be in Manhattan.

Anyway, do the math. The only way that a car can be 25% of your income is if you buy an inappropriate car for your income. People making $30k per year but driving BMWs and such.