WP: Even as gas prices rattle economy, Americans can’t stay off the road

[Jon Bon]

Not to mention you have the biggest state in the union talking about giving people $ rebates to purchase more gas. Which is the worst of both worlds. It will increase demand for gas, and increase the money supply (inflation), so everyone loses.....

I agree this is an incredibly stupid thing for California to be contemplating for lots of reasons particularly in a state trying to get people off of gasoline to begin with.

However, I don't think their rebate actually increases the money supply since California cannot print money, nor is the fed buying California's bonds. The rebate will get paid either from tax revenue (no new money created), borrowing from the private sector (no new money created), or via recovery act funds provided by the federal government (which may ultimately represent newly created money but the states were gonna spend it all one way or another so the rebate doesn't INCREASE money creation).

Right I was referring to the money multiplier, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the QE that the fed keeps doing.

If I am right or wrong about the above matters not, because paying people to buy more gas is still dumb!

[PDXTabs]

People are assholes. The first thing you do, when gas prices are shooting up, is cut back on driving.
Maybe thats too obvious to us Mustachians.

@force majeure Asshole here.  I've had a Memorial Day weekend trip planned to the family lakehouse for months.  I still plan on going.  I'm not canceling because I could save a tank's worth of gasoline or because a tank is $20 more than it was at some nebulous point in the past.  As has been stated, gas has been more expensive in this country in the past in real terms and gas is still cheap compared to other developed countries.  There are many things to celebrate in life (e.g. my mom's retirement starting tomorrow and continuing the celebration at the lakehouse, seeing cousins that we haven't seen since pre-pandemic) - many of life's celebrations are worth more (to me, at least) than the cost of gasoline to drive you there.  To each asshole their own asshole but I think I'd rather go and be viewed as an asshole anti-mustachian or whatever anonymously online rather than being an actual asshole and canceling and telling my family that saving a few bucks on gas is more important than seeing them and celebrating with them.  Outside of that, I work from home and made a conscious decision to live near multiple grocery stores and other amenities.  My personal amount of driving has not changed in years regardless of the price at the pump, but then again, I guess that's due to being an asshole but I digress.

I think that driving to get to special events is the best possible driving. It's communing alone in your car that doesn't make any sense at all to my brain.

[lutorm]

My conclusion is that all the bitching about gas prices is just that -- bitching. It's like bitching about the weather, and has about the same amount of effect on the real world. I don't know why people pay attention.

[NorthernIkigai]

I can't see too many people moving because of gas prices though. At least where I live. The housing market remains pretty insane here with very few homes on the market and sky high prices.

While I agree that in short term very few - if any - people would move solely due to gas prices, if prices stay elevated long enough then most people will factor them in when moving. Based on my own experience moving six years ago, when selecting a new house, proximity to a train station was one of the key things I looked for.

Yes! We’re looking for a new place, and the first thing I check when seeing a potential place is the public transport routes to the primary school, the secondary school, my job, grandparents, etc. I know a lot of the connections already, but the micro location really makes a difference for this.

In the time that we’ve been keeping an eye on the market a lot of things have changed: spouse is exclusively WFH now, the city has decided to move the secondary school, I’ve changed jobs. I of course kept the transport options in mind when looking for jobs as well, so probably missed out on some opportunities that were outside of a comfortable commuting radius. Thankfully, living near everything also includes living near a lot of good jobs.

[former player]

A house closer to work that is a 3/2, 1400 sf, bottom of the housing market just sold yesterday for $1.8M. 

It's insane if a 1400sf house is "bottom of the market".  That's a big (social and environmental) problem, that you don't have smaller homes than that, even more than the price.

[dcheesi]

One point on the "just live closer to work" topic is dual wage-earner households. My fiancée and I both work, and our offices aren't that close to each other. Short of one of us changing jobs (which I don't want to, and she has golden handcuffs atm), there's really no place for us to live that's particularly close to both.

[GuitarStv]

One point on the "just live closer to work" topic is dual wage-earner households. My fiancée and I both work, and our offices aren't that close to each other. Short of one of us changing jobs (which I don't want to, and she has golden handcuffs atm), there's really no place for us to live that's particularly close to both.

Yep.  This is a pretty common problem.

[ChpBstrd]

[Michael in ABQ]

A house closer to work that is a 3/2, 1400 sf, bottom of the housing market just sold yesterday for $1.8M. 

It's insane if a 1400sf house is "bottom of the market".  That's a big (social and environmental) problem, that you don't have smaller homes than that, even more than the price.

The cost to build a 2,000 SF home is not much more than a 1,400 SF home. A lot of the costs are relatively fixed so why wouldn't a builder try to maximize their profit? Unless you have smaller lots, which allows greater density there's no reason to target the bottom of the market. The profits will always be higher for the middle- and upper-end of the market. I grew up in a 1,300 SF 3/2 home but my parents added an extra bedroom soon after I was born bringing it up to about 1,500 SF and 4/2. That seemed fine to me growing up. I doubt you could find many homes detached single family homes built in the last decade or two under 1,500 SF.

[Fomerly known as something]

I can't see too many people moving because of gas prices though. At least where I live. The housing market remains pretty insane here with very few homes on the market and sky high prices.

While I agree that in short term very few - if any - people would move solely due to gas prices, if prices stay elevated long enough then most people will factor them in when moving. Based on my own experience moving six years ago, when selecting a new house, proximity to a train station was one of the key things I looked for.

I get a work provided car, with work provided gas and tolls for work driving.  I recently moved cities and was talking to the division boss.  100% my housing choices would be different, if I was paying for these things.  As it is I did notice that it was $150 for a half a tank of gas on one of our speciality vehicles which needs premium and gets about 8mpg.

[former player]

A house closer to work that is a 3/2, 1400 sf, bottom of the housing market just sold yesterday for $1.8M. 

It's insane if a 1400sf house is "bottom of the market".  That's a big (social and environmental) problem, that you don't have smaller homes than that, even more than the price.

The cost to build a 2,000 SF home is not much more than a 1,400 SF home. A lot of the costs are relatively fixed so why wouldn't a builder try to maximize their profit? Unless you have smaller lots, which allows greater density there's no reason to target the bottom of the market. The profits will always be higher for the middle- and upper-end of the market. I grew up in a 1,300 SF 3/2 home but my parents added an extra bedroom soon after I was born bringing it up to about 1,500 SF and 4/2. That seemed fine to me growing up. I doubt you could find many homes detached single family homes built in the last decade or two under 1,500 SF.

But what about all the single people, the couples without children, the older people wanting to downsize? Not everyone lives in a "traditional" family unit and even those who do don't live in them all their lives.   People in houses bigger than they need are hoarding economic resources and destroying the environment, and are quite possibly worse off than they need to be and wasting time and effort and money on maintenance of something unsuitable.

The market issue for builders can be taken care of through proper urban planning, using it to create a mix of housing types and ownership models.  It's a big mistake to think that a nuclear family in a suburban SFH on a lot of a certain size is the only or best way to go.

[darknight]

In summary, consumers in the USA are willing to cut back on anything except petrol. This is different from the last time that we had a large run-up in fuel prices and has broader economic implications. Washington Post: Even as gas prices rattle economy, Americans can’t stay off the road

What do you expect?  If the gas price is too high, do you think commuters who can't work from home to just quit?

In 2008 commuters found other ways to get to work including carpooling, transit, and buying more fuel efficient cars. Of course buying cars right now is hard, maybe they should have thought ahead and purchased less trucks and SUVs for the last 12 years.

When gas/fuel went north of $4 gallon in that last couple months I immediately noticed people driving a little slower and less aggressive. Now fuel is nearly $5/gallon and everyone is back to driving 90mph and I see more vehicles on the road.

It's insane to think that Ford doesn't manufacture cars (mustang aside) for the USA market. There was literally such low demand that they switched to SUV/truck only. That tells you what you need to know about our lifestyles here. $800/month payment and $5/gallon fuel. Not a good idea for anyone.

[Tigerpine]

In summary, consumers in the USA are willing to cut back on anything except petrol. This is different from the last time that we had a large run-up in fuel prices and has broader economic implications. Washington Post: Even as gas prices rattle economy, Americans can’t stay off the road

What do you expect?  If the gas price is too high, do you think commuters who can't work from home to just quit?

In 2008 commuters found other ways to get to work including carpooling, transit, and buying more fuel efficient cars. Of course buying cars right now is hard, maybe they should have thought ahead and purchased less trucks and SUVs for the last 12 years.

When gas/fuel went north of $4 gallon in that last couple months I immediately noticed people driving a little slower and less aggressive. Now fuel is nearly $5/gallon and everyone is back to driving 90mph and I see more vehicles on the road.

It's insane to think that Ford doesn't manufacture cars (mustang aside) for the USA market. There was literally such low demand that they switched to SUV/truck only. That tells you what you need to know about our lifestyles here. $800/month payment and $5/gallon fuel. Not a good idea for anyone.

Ford is starting to offer an all electric truck.  That's not nothing, given how popular trucks are in the US.
https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/f150-lightning/

[GuitarStv]

People in houses bigger than they need are hoarding economic resources and destroying the environment, and are quite possibly worse off than they need to be and wasting time and effort and money on maintenance of something unsuitable.

I'm not sure that this is entirely true.

With something like a 1600 square foot house vs a 2100 square foot house . . . all things being equal, the bigger house will require more building resources and will be slightly more expensive to heat/cool.  But heating/cooling doesn't scale linearly (and in my experience depends more on construction than size) so the difference is probably marginal.

But as far as worse off . . . meh.  That doesn't really ring true.  A two story 2100 square foot house could easily have a smaller roof to maintain than a 1600 square foot bungalo.  Home size has nothing to do with yard size, so grounds maintenance is a wash.  The 2100 square foot house might have a couple additional rooms, or slightly bigger rooms . . . but I'd anticipate very minimal differences in actual cleaning time.

Actually having that additional space is invaluable though.  If I'm playing music late at night, I need an isolated space away from the rest of the family to keep people from being woken up.  If I am practicing singing some new songs that I've written, I need space where it doesn't feel like everyone in the house is sitting over my shoulder listening to all the mistakes being made as I try new stuff out.  Having a dedicated space in the house for exercise means that I exercise more often and am healthier.  I also enjoy having the room to host family and friends comfortably during holidays.  During the pandemic, with both my wife and I working from home while my son was doing half-assed distance ed that space was about the only thing that kept me sane.

I won't argue that it's not selfish, but people are selfish about it because the extra space leads to happiness - at least in many cases.

[OtherJen]

People are assholes. The first thing you do, when gas prices are shooting up, is cut back on driving.
Maybe thats too obvious to us Mustachians.

@force majeure Asshole here.  I've had a Memorial Day weekend trip planned to the family lakehouse for months.  I still plan on going.  I'm not canceling because I could save a tank's worth of gasoline or because a tank is $20 more than it was at some nebulous point in the past.  As has been stated, gas has been more expensive in this country in the past in real terms and gas is still cheap compared to other developed countries.  There are many things to celebrate in life (e.g. my mom's retirement starting tomorrow and continuing the celebration at the lakehouse, seeing cousins that we haven't seen since pre-pandemic) - many of life's celebrations are worth more (to me, at least) than the cost of gasoline to drive you there.  To each asshole their own asshole but I think I'd rather go and be viewed as an asshole anti-mustachian or whatever anonymously online rather than being an actual asshole and canceling and telling my family that saving a few bucks on gas is more important than seeing them and celebrating with them.  Outside of that, I work from home and made a conscious decision to live near multiple grocery stores and other amenities.  My personal amount of driving has not changed in years regardless of the price at the pump, but then again, I guess that's due to being an asshole but I digress.

I'm also an asshole, then. Last weekend, we drove 30 miles west to visit friends and their little kids, who have grown so much since we last saw them in the winter, then 90 miles north to visit my elderly in-laws for the first time since Christmas Eve. In August, we're driving 225 miles north to camp at a state park with my niece and nephew before they go back to school. Husband and I both WFH, take the Prius on all longer car trips, and are taking the train to Chicago next week, so I guess that counterbalances our asshole tendencies. Normally we fill our gas tanks at most once a month. It's worth it to us to spend a bit more of our travel budget to take such trips.

[LaineyAZ]

Speaking of kids, that's another aspect that many forget:  most parents want their children to have some extra-curriculars or enrichment activities which means needing to coordinate the logistics of how those kids are supposed to get there and back? 
Hence the parade of parents, grandparents, family, carpool friends, etc. who need to drive around town for in-person athletics, music lessons, art lessons, swim class, drama club, etc. 
This doesn't include any doctor/dental/orthodontist visits, or academic or other tutoring, or any other normal kid life reasons to need to be driven somewhere. 

That's how our society is set up and I don't see that going away because of $5+/gallon of gas.

[GuitarStv]

Speaking of kids, that's another aspect that many forget:  most parents want their children to have some extra-curriculars or enrichment activities which means needing to coordinate the logistics of how those kids are supposed to get there and back? 
Hence the parade of parents, grandparents, family, carpool friends, etc. who need to drive around town for in-person athletics, music lessons, art lessons, swim class, drama club, etc. 
This doesn't include any doctor/dental/orthodontist visits, or academic or other tutoring, or any other normal kid life reasons to need to be driven somewhere. 

That's how our society is set up and I don't see that going away because of $5+/gallon of gas.

Fuck, I would love it if these programs were available on school grounds for a couple hours after school.  Besides avoiding the whole need to drive everywhere, it would make life a lot easier for parents who work 8-9 hours a day rather than the 7 that school is in for.

[LaineyAZ]

Speaking of kids, that's another aspect that many forget:  most parents want their children to have some extra-curriculars or enrichment activities which means needing to coordinate the logistics of how those kids are supposed to get there and back? 
Hence the parade of parents, grandparents, family, carpool friends, etc. who need to drive around town for in-person athletics, music lessons, art lessons, swim class, drama club, etc. 
This doesn't include any doctor/dental/orthodontist visits, or academic or other tutoring, or any other normal kid life reasons to need to be driven somewhere. 

That's how our society is set up and I don't see that going away because of $5+/gallon of gas.

Fuck, I would love it if these programs were available on school grounds for a couple hours after school.  Besides avoiding the whole need to drive everywhere, it would make life a lot easier for parents who work 8-9 hours a day rather than the 7 that school is in for.

I'm 100% in agreement with you. 
But I'm remembering my own high school days where most kids rode the bus to/from school.  There was one "late bus" available ONLY to the kids who played sports and had to stay late to practice.  All other students who stayed late for drama, art, volunteer club, etc. had to walk, ride a bike, or get a ride back home.  It really hit home what our schools actually prioritized although no one questioned it at the time.

[Villanelle]

Speaking of kids, that's another aspect that many forget:  most parents want their children to have some extra-curriculars or enrichment activities which means needing to coordinate the logistics of how those kids are supposed to get there and back? 
Hence the parade of parents, grandparents, family, carpool friends, etc. who need to drive around town for in-person athletics, music lessons, art lessons, swim class, drama club, etc. 
This doesn't include any doctor/dental/orthodontist visits, or academic or other tutoring, or any other normal kid life reasons to need to be driven somewhere. 

That's how our society is set up and I don't see that going away because of $5+/gallon of gas.

Fuck, I would love it if these programs were available on school grounds for a couple hours after school.  Besides avoiding the whole need to drive everywhere, it would make life a lot easier for parents who work 8-9 hours a day rather than the 7 that school is in for.

I'm 100% in agreement with you. 
But I'm remembering my own high school days where most kids rode the bus to/from school.  There was one "late bus" available ONLY to the kids who played sports and had to stay late to practice.  All other students who stayed late for drama, art, volunteer club, etc. had to walk, ride a bike, or get a ride back home.  It really hit home what our schools actually prioritized although no one questioned it at the time.

Interesting. I didn't know activity busses were even a thing. My school had no such bus, and most kids didn't live within walking distance (or maybe even reasonable biking distance given hills, distance, plus exhaustion after doing a vigorous sport or activity after school).  I still recall how overjoyed my mom was when my sister got her license so she could do her do some of her own driving, as well as some of mine. (Our activities overlapped so some days she was on the same schedule.)  And I was a year older than most of my friend group, who were all in the same activity, and their parents happily paid me a few buck each month to take everyone home (and all were more or less on my way, as I lived the furthest out.  It was a very high income area but I suspect that transportation was a barrier to participation for the few lower income kids who had no way to get home after their school bus option left, and didn't have anyone who would drop them off on their own trips. 

I also had a 0 period, which was an hour before school.  Again, no bus option.  Band had this, and I think some other sports did as well. 

[Paper Chaser]

In summary, consumers in the USA are willing to cut back on anything except petrol. This is different from the last time that we had a large run-up in fuel prices and has broader economic implications. Washington Post: Even as gas prices rattle economy, Americans can’t stay off the road

What do you expect?  If the gas price is too high, do you think commuters who can't work from home to just quit?

In 2008 commuters found other ways to get to work including carpooling, transit, and buying more fuel efficient cars. Of course buying cars right now is hard, maybe they should have thought ahead and purchased less trucks and SUVs for the last 12 years.

When gas/fuel went north of $4 gallon in that last couple months I immediately noticed people driving a little slower and less aggressive. Now fuel is nearly $5/gallon and everyone is back to driving 90mph and I see more vehicles on the road.

It's insane to think that Ford doesn't manufacture cars (mustang aside) for the USA market. There was literally such low demand that they switched to SUV/truck only. That tells you what you need to know about our lifestyles here. $800/month payment and $5/gallon fuel. Not a good idea for anyone.

There was a decent amount of demand for sedans, but it was waning and they figured out that trucks and CUVS are more profitable. So that's why they quit cars.
But:
Ford offers regular hybrid versions of the Maverick and F150 pick ups, and the Escape and Explorer CUVs.
They offer a PHEV version of the Lincoln Aviator and Escape.
They offer fully electric Mach E CUV and Lightning F150.

There's not as much drawback to trucks and CUVs anymore from a financial perspective. Or alternately, one of the primary benefits of the sedans was reduced by varying amounts of electrification. Those trends are only going to increase moving forward. And not just with Ford, but all car makers.

[PDXTabs]

There was a decent amount of demand for sedans, but it was waning and they figured out that trucks and CUVS are more profitable. So that's why they quit cars.

It's more complicated than that. SUVs/CUVs are incentivized by the CAFE rules. Thanks Obama! Slate: Are Gas Prices Too High? Or Is Your Car Too Big?

EDITed to add interview with author here: TWAC: Pain at the Pump which includes:
There was this moment, 2011-2012, when Obama in 2011 passed these ambitious new corporate average fuel economy standards, which—the CAFE standards. And that meant that carmakers had to basically quickly improve the average miles per gallon that their new models were getting. And buyers also had been—we were just coming out of the Great Recession. The economy was really bad, public transit use was up, people were buying smaller cars, driving less, using transit more. And all those things were true for a moment, but then things changed pretty quickly because the CAFE rules turned out to have a huge loophole in them.

[AlanStache]

I am one of those single people living in a 1400 sq house by them self.  One room is closed off with the vents blocked and one other is basically never used.  My employer is sort if outside the down town area and there are very few if any <1000sq housing options and nearly all are single family homes too  (have been with company now 20 years, probably will FIRE from them).   I would like to move to the down town area but then the commute becomes +40min drive each way, where now I am able to e-bike most days.  Currently my HVAC is basically off during the day because no one is home, NEST says I use less than 80% of the HVAC resources of the homes in my area, but is still a waste of resources. 

Electric cars will not solve the core problem that North America was build to require personal car ownership.  Things are just to spread out.  This will take decades if not longer to solve. 

[PDXTabs]

Electric cars will not solve the core problem that North America was build to require personal car ownership.  Things are just to spread out.  This will take decades if not longer to solve.

I didn't really start this thread to talk about urban planning in the USA, but I guess it was inevitable. North America was not built to require personal car ownership, until it was. In 1945 there were 26M cars (total, not just personal) in the USA and 140M people. But that was the end of it. After WWII the US and Canada invested heavily in car dependent sprawl.

But they had a chance to fix this in 1973 with the oil shocks... and chose not to. But yes, I've seen estimates that we could do an awful lot of infill and transit in two decades. The problem is that we never start. Not in 1973, not in 2008, and not now.

[PDXTabs]

As of today I saw my first report of less consumption. BI: Gas prices have soared so high that the US is now seeing demand destruction ahead of the summer driving season.

[Arbitrage]

Electric cars will not solve the core problem that North America was build to require personal car ownership.  Things are just to spread out.  This will take decades if not longer to solve.

I didn't really start this thread to talk about urban planning in the USA, but I guess it was inevitable. North America was not built to require personal car ownership, until it was. In 1945 there were 26M cars (total, not just personal) in the USA and 140M people. But that was the end of it. After WWII the US and Canada invested heavily in car dependent sprawl.

But they had a chance to fix this in 1973 with the oil shocks... and chose not to. But yes, I've seen estimates that we could do an awful lot of infill and transit in two decades. The problem is that we never start. Not in 1973, not in 2008, and not now.

The good thing is that we could still fix it.  Amsterdam was a car-based hellhole not that long ago.  The bad thing is that we won't fix it. 

[AlanStache]

...
The good thing is that we could still fix it.  Amsterdam was a car-based hellhole not that long ago.  The bad thing is that we won't fix it.

To some extent I think cities may be getting the message but outside city cores the problems cars create are not acute enough to spur real change. 

"Even as gas prices rattle economy, Americans can’t stay off the road"
Yes quite literally many americans have no real choice but to stay on the road.  They can cut things around the corners but make not fundamental changes. 

[GuitarStv]

There are a large number of people living in North America who are going to be really hard to convince that living in a city is something they should do.  It really will require a way of life change that a lot of people are going to both hate and fight.  Not sure if this is true in the US, but here in Canada quite a few rural areas are already pretty right wing and anti-environment.  That sentiment is going to get worse and they're going to dig in and coal roll harder and harder.

[AlanStache]

There are a large number of people living in North America who are going to be really hard to convince that living in a city is something they should do.  It really will require a way of life change that a lot of people are going to both hate and fight.  Not sure if this is true in the US, but here in Canada quite a few rural areas are already pretty right wing and anti-environment.  That sentiment is going to get worse and they're going to dig in and coal roll harder and harder.

Cities are not required just more centralized around a town core would be more economical.  I grew up in a small town, but in the suburban sprawl part of it, literally no shops within walking distance, bike/car dependent.  USA will never force people to move to a city but decades of high gas price might make people re-evaluate there priorities.  You want to live in the country, great, but it will cost 50$ in gas to drive to the store.  But I am afraid the usa would invade any country for the prospect of cheap gas.  It took generations for us to come to think of suburbia as normal, with some luck maybe we can reverse it to some degree in a bit less time. 

agreed

[Jon Bon]

Electric cars will not solve the core problem that North America was build to require personal car ownership.  Things are just to spread out.  This will take decades if not longer to solve.

I didn't really start this thread to talk about urban planning in the USA, but I guess it was inevitable. North America was not built to require personal car ownership, until it was. In 1945 there were 26M cars (total, not just personal) in the USA and 140M people. But that was the end of it. After WWII the US and Canada invested heavily in car dependent sprawl.

But they had a chance to fix this in 1973 with the oil shocks... and chose not to. But yes, I've seen estimates that we could do an awful lot of infill and transit in two decades. The problem is that we never start. Not in 1973, not in 2008, and not now.

The good thing is that we could still fix it.  Amsterdam was a car-based hellhole not that long ago.  The bad thing is that we won't fix it.

The US is 200 times bigger than the Netherlands. So I don't know anything about the Netherlands. but it looks like a huge portion of the population lives in a pretty centralized area: Amsterdam and Rotterdam? With the three densest provinces being right next to each other. So yeah the need for a car is not huge. What changed in Amsterdam? To make it car hell hole to what it is now? I did a quick google and yeah it looks like car hell with all the canals (read bridges!) So still a car hell hole but they realized they had to invest in other options?

The United States absolutely does have transportation options in our densest population centers on the east coast. Its just because driving a car is too much of a pain in the ass to make it worth while, as I imagine it is in most European cities.  I do kind of feel like that is the "plan" in lots of cities basically just let the problem get so bad that people just end of finding other options?

If I was god for a day (I don't think being a king for a day would be enough) My solution would be to build more housing. Lots more dense close in housing. The god power I would need would be to basically destroy all the planning commissions who kill a building because the roof is 8 inches too high or whatever problems that they can come up with.

[fuzzy math]

But what about all the single people, the couples without children, the older people wanting to downsize? Not everyone lives in a "traditional" family unit and even those who do don't live in them all their lives.   People in houses bigger than they need are hoarding economic resources and destroying the environment, and are quite possibly worse off than they need to be and wasting time and effort and money on maintenance of something unsuitable.

The market issue for builders can be taken care of through proper urban planning, using it to create a mix of housing types and ownership models.  It's a big mistake to think that a nuclear family in a suburban SFH on a lot of a certain size is the only or best way to go.

Older couples moving to downsize are more likely to be looking to switch to a single level home, and something with less maintenance. That generally means newer construction which is probably going to be 1600 sf at least, unless built in an affordable housing situation.
I'm not really sure why you have such inflexible ideas about how things should be for others, but I could name a ton of reasons why a couple (or even a single person) might want a home larger than a 800 sf, 2br /1ba house. Having a roommate, having family out of day trip distance, having frequent guests, grandchildren who sleep over due to a parent's schedule, having a personal office, a home gym, working remotely, having a hobby that lends itself to lots of space (sewing, art etc). I can say at a bare minimum I'm never going to purchase a property with 1 bathroom, its a non starter for many people.

[JLee]

But what about all the single people, the couples without children, the older people wanting to downsize? Not everyone lives in a "traditional" family unit and even those who do don't live in them all their lives.   People in houses bigger than they need are hoarding economic resources and destroying the environment, and are quite possibly worse off than they need to be and wasting time and effort and money on maintenance of something unsuitable.

The market issue for builders can be taken care of through proper urban planning, using it to create a mix of housing types and ownership models.  It's a big mistake to think that a nuclear family in a suburban SFH on a lot of a certain size is the only or best way to go.

Older couples moving to downsize are more likely to be looking to switch to a single level home, and something with less maintenance. That generally means newer construction which is probably going to be 1600 sf at least, unless built in an affordable housing situation.
I'm not really sure why you have such inflexible ideas about how things should be for others, but I could name a ton of reasons why a couple (or even a single person) might want a home larger than a 800 sf, 2br /1ba house. Having a roommate, having family out of day trip distance, having frequent guests, grandchildren who sleep over due to a parent's schedule, having a personal office, a home gym, working remotely, having a hobby that lends itself to lots of space (sewing, art etc). I can say at a bare minimum I'm never going to purchase a property with 1 bathroom, its a non starter for many people.

Yep...there are three people in my house (four or five for most of the summer), and two of us work 100% from home.  A tiny house is a non-starter.

[former player]

All I do is suggest that not all homes have to be large single family homes and out come the Americans who 1) take it personally and 2) can't think out of their commonplace suburban box and 3) appear to have no idea that in the rest of the world people very happily live in other housing solutions.

Jeez.

[big_owl]

All I do is suggest that not all homes have to be large single family homes and out come the Americans who 1) take it personally and 2) can't think out of their commonplace suburban box and 3) appear to have no idea that in the rest of the world people very happily live in other housing solutions.

Jeez.

No, you insulted a large group of people, probably most everybody on this board is living in a house larger than they absolutely need.  Are you the arbiter of what constitutes the right sized home for people? 

[maizefolk]

All I do is suggest that not all homes have to be large single family homes and out come the Americans who 1) take it personally and 2) can't think out of their commonplace suburban box and 3) appear to have no idea that in the rest of the world people very happily live in other housing solutions.

People in houses bigger than they need are hoarding economic resources and destroying the environment, and are quite possibly worse off than they need to be and wasting time and effort and money on maintenance of something unsuitable.

You are right, I cannot see why anyone would take what you said personally.

And that's before you continue to try to lump the pushback you received into your repeatedly stated dislike of americans. Putting aside that at least some of the pushback has been coming from Canada.

[bill1827]

The good thing is that we could still fix it.  Amsterdam was a car-based hellhole not that long ago.  The bad thing is that we won't fix it.

The US is 200 times bigger than the Netherlands. So I don't know anything about the Netherlands. but it looks like a huge portion of the population lives in a pretty centralized area: Amsterdam and Rotterdam? With the three densest provinces being right next to each other. So yeah the need for a car is not huge. What changed in Amsterdam? To make it car hell hole to what it is now?

The Netherlands starts with a few advantages, it's small, pretty flat and has good public transport. However they seem to have made a decision to re-engineer their road network to remove the absolute priority that vehicles usually have and give equal standing to pedestrians and cyclists. Not Just Bikes has several informative videos on the subject. This playlist covers most of it. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0-l3puEmrvn-593mRVV6AZr

Unfortunately re-engineering on this scale is expensive, so not particularly likely to succeed well outside a small country without an overwhelming car culture.

[former player]

All I do is suggest that not all homes have to be large single family homes and out come the Americans who 1) take it personally and 2) can't think out of their commonplace suburban box and 3) appear to have no idea that in the rest of the world people very happily live in other housing solutions.

People in houses bigger than they need are hoarding economic resources and destroying the environment, and are quite possibly worse off than they need to be and wasting time and effort and money on maintenance of something unsuitable.

You are right, I cannot see why anyone would take what you said personally.

And that's before you continue to try to lump the pushback you received into your repeatedly stated dislike of americans. Putting aside that at least some of the pushback has been coming from Canada.

I don't believe I've ever stated that I don't like Americans.  I do dislike some of the things Americans do, specifically in relation to climate change (of which overlarge houses taking overlarge environmental resources to build and maintain is a significant part) and, at the moment, guns.  I am not alone in that.

ETA: Oh, and removing abortion rights too.

[GuitarStv]

There are a large number of people living in North America who are going to be really hard to convince that living in a city is something they should do.  It really will require a way of life change that a lot of people are going to both hate and fight.  Not sure if this is true in the US, but here in Canada quite a few rural areas are already pretty right wing and anti-environment.  That sentiment is going to get worse and they're going to dig in and coal roll harder and harder.

Cities are not required just more centralized around a town core would be more economical.  I grew up in a small town, but in the suburban sprawl part of it, literally no shops within walking distance, bike/car dependent.  USA will never force people to move to a city but decades of high gas price might make people re-evaluate there priorities.  You want to live in the country, great, but it will cost 50$ in gas to drive to the store.  But I am afraid the usa would invade any country for the prospect of cheap gas.  It took generations for us to come to think of suburbia as normal, with some luck maybe we can reverse it to some degree in a bit less time. 

agreed

The thing is . . . these people vote.  And in the United States, rural votes count for significantly more than city votes, so it's hard for me to envision a scenario where 50$ gas trips to the store ever become reality for rural living.  Or if they do, there will be some sort of additional rural subsidy (beyond the many infrastructure subsidies already in place) implemented to continue to support the lifestyle.

[AlanStache]

The good thing is that we could still fix it.  Amsterdam was a car-based hellhole not that long ago.  The bad thing is that we won't fix it.

The US is 200 times bigger than the Netherlands. So I don't know anything about the Netherlands. but it looks like a huge portion of the population lives in a pretty centralized area: Amsterdam and Rotterdam? With the three densest provinces being right next to each other. So yeah the need for a car is not huge. What changed in Amsterdam? To make it car hell hole to what it is now?

The Netherlands also makes non-car users of roads a priority out side city centers.  I spent a lot of time in a smaller town and there were good bike paths everywhere - no literally everywhere.  The bike paths are not just some pathetic half warn off paint declaring the shoulder a bike lane but proper isolated paths that bikes and pedestrians actually use.  The visual design of the streets also invites people to use it (people not just motorists), streets are not just an empty desolate concrete slab but is visually appealing to humans.

Spend some time with street view here (https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1977409,4.7511137,2021m/data=!3m1!1e3) not the town I was in but just some random small town I zoomed in on.  You can see the streets are made with all possible users in mind. 

[Car Jack]

I'm waiting to see reaction to the gas prices in car choices.  I've been through this a few times already.

In 1973, the Arabs pulled oil and the oil embargo hit the US.  I know that at that time, my dad, who would buy cars like an Olds Custom Cruiser, with the big V8 and weight of over 6000 pound bought a Chevy Vega.  He was absolutely amazed with the fuel mileage even though the unsleeved engine cracked a cylinder in the block twice.  Once at 35k miles that Chevy fixed and again at 51k miles that Chevy said to pound sand.  People started looking at and buying Toyota, Honda, Datsun.  I can remember the prices being as high as a mid sized 'Murican V8 car.  Expensive.

Then in 1979, the Iran/Iraq war (the US sold arms to both sides) drove prices up and I remember this with lines at gas stations where attendants would put the "no more gas" sign behind the last car in line.  I had purchased a 1978 Chevy van with a 350 4 barrel carb and an automatic.  3/4 ton capacity.  This was because I was in a van club and I spent most of my money on this thing, going to events (truck ins) every weekend.  My dad picked up a Chevy Chevette.  More choices were available from both US and foreign companies for little cars. 

So now, the price is going up for reasons I don't quite understand.  I have yet to see people drop the huge SUVs and 4 door pickups.  I've actually been test driving EVs which are WICKED expensive.  I've done the calculations and yes, an EV is currently cheaper per mile to drive than my Subaru Crosstrek, but for example, a Tesla model 3 single motor base model is still double what I paid for the Crosstrek new.  Doesn't make sense for me, working at home with my wife working at home.  And for an AWD Tesla or a Kia EV6 or Mustang Mach e, we're talking almost 3 times what the Crosstrek costs.  Maybe prices will drop or people will do cars like the Crosstrek plug in hybrid that's literally on a Prius prime system.

But the premise of the thread.....stop driving so much.....that is certainly the simplest, cheapest, no real change kind of thing to do if you can do it.  I do know that my son who still lives here and works 50 miles away has been able to do a day a week from home and is driving my 30 mpg crosstrek on regular gas instead of his cool commuter car, a Subaru STi at 20 mpg on premium.  So there's one solid change in behavior in our house.

[Jon Bon]

I just looked it up.

US population per sq mile: 94
Netherland pop per sq mile: 1,316

So the Netherlands is 14 times more populated. I just don't think we can fairly compare the two.

To be completely fair the American west is pretty dang empty. But if you take the MOST dense state (NJ) it still only has a density of 1,211 per sq mile. So yes NJ could put in a bunch of bike paths and mass transit and all that stuff. But the entire US just cannot.

I mean its super cool the Netherlands has been able to prioritize bike paths, but the US is just not dense enough for most of those ideas to work.

[AlanStache]

...
The thing is . . . these people vote.  And in the United States, rural votes count for significantly more than city votes, so it's hard for me to envision a scenario where 50$ gas trips to the store ever become reality for rural living.  Or if they do, there will be some sort of additional rural subsidy (beyond the many infrastructure subsidies already in place) implemented to continue to support the lifestyle.

yep, you are not wrong. 

Was talking with some rural family members and the subject of meat substitutes came up and there first reaction was that ranchers needed to get subsidies form the government.  Pressed on it they saw the hypocrisy of it (cowboys = freedom, rugged individuals that  pulled themselves up by the bootstraps, capitalist's & free-markets etc) but free money to the rural person whos job was lost due to technology was the default mind set. 

[tooqk4u22]

Electric cars will not solve the core problem that North America was build to require personal car ownership.  Things are just to spread out.  This will take decades if not longer to solve.

I didn't really start this thread to talk about urban planning in the USA, but I guess it was inevitable. North America was not built to require personal car ownership, until it was. In 1945 there were 26M cars (total, not just personal) in the USA and 140M people. But that was the end of it. After WWII the US and Canada invested heavily in car dependent sprawl.

But they had a chance to fix this in 1973 with the oil shocks... and chose not to. But yes, I've seen estimates that we could do an awful lot of infill and transit in two decades. The problem is that we never start. Not in 1973, not in 2008, and not now.

Keep in mind that less than half of women had licenses back then unless they were wealthy couldn't buy a car bc of laco od jobs, lower pay, sexism, etc.....and for those married women they had only one car households bc the husband would certainly not want afford some freedoms to their servant.

A man's earlier history with autos is far different than a woman's.   And as that changes the need for more vehicles developed along with the suburban sprawl.

Vehicles did and do afford a variety of freedoms - but doesn't mean their can't be improved efficiency

Edit to add -  nowadays all those suburban housewives drive escalades, Tahoe, and navigators....so ya know, progress lol

[AlanStache]

I just looked it up.

US population per sq mile: 94
Netherland pop per sq mile: 1,316

So the Netherlands is 14 times more populated. I just don't think we can fairly compare the two.

To be completely fair the American west is pretty dang empty. But if you take the MOST dense state (NJ) it still only has a density of 1,211 per sq mile. So yes NJ could put in a bunch of bike paths and mass transit and all that stuff. But the entire US just cannot.

I mean its super cool the Netherlands has been able to prioritize bike paths, but the US is just not dense enough for most of those ideas to work.

Go zoom around the street view I liked above, it is just a random normal dutch town.  the streets are made for people not cars.  the dutch have towns, the usa has towns.  they dont do suburban sprawl to the extent we do, we both have made decisions on the subject some choices more consciously than others.  They will intermix shops and services people go to in housing areas so people can walk/bike/rollerblade/Segway for normal daily life. 

"Its not just bikes" - a great youtube channel you need to check out.

Edit: will add that they have also made the choice to make new construction consistent with old.  So the new homes in an old village will blend in with the old ones, its not just they only have old towns with narrow streets, the new parts of new towns were built that way too.

[Just Joe]

I don't believe I've ever stated that I don't like Americans.  I do dislike some of the things Americans do, specifically in relation to climate change (of which overlarge houses taking overlarge environmental resources to build and maintain is a significant part) and, at the moment, guns.  I am not alone in that.

ETA: Oh, and removing abortion rights too.

I would never consider living in the typical American city with Americans. And yes, I'm American. I haven't visited an American city yet that I felt drawn to live in. What I see in the #NotJustBikes has some appeal. I also would never live in the kind of American suburbia that is defined by big box retailers and stroads - and miles of dense cookie cutter houses or older houses facing busy roads like I saw in a nearby big city when we visited for a funeral.

Small towns are where it is at (for us) if one can find "your people" and employment. We've raised our kids here. Its been a good life. We visit the big city (an ~hour away) when we need the city experience - shopping, entertainment, reminders why we would never consider living there unless forced. 

[Just Joe]

I've actually been test driving EVs which are WICKED expensive.  I've done the calculations and yes, an EV is currently cheaper per mile to drive than my Subaru Crosstrek, but for example, a Tesla model 3 single motor base model is still double what I paid for the Crosstrek new.  Doesn't make sense for me, working at home with my wife working at home.  And for an AWD Tesla or a Kia EV6 or Mustang Mach e, we're talking almost 3 times what the Crosstrek costs.  Maybe prices will drop or people will do cars like the Crosstrek plug in hybrid that's literally on a Prius prime system.

Maybe people just look at the payment size, not the total cost of the car.

[Paper Chaser]

The good thing is that we could still fix it.  Amsterdam was a car-based hellhole not that long ago.  The bad thing is that we won't fix it.

The US is 200 times bigger than the Netherlands. So I don't know anything about the Netherlands. but it looks like a huge portion of the population lives in a pretty centralized area: Amsterdam and Rotterdam? With the three densest provinces being right next to each other. So yeah the need for a car is not huge. What changed in Amsterdam? To make it car hell hole to what it is now?

The Netherlands also makes non-car users of roads a priority out side city centers.  I spent a lot of time in a smaller town and there were good bike paths everywhere - no literally everywhere.  The bike paths are not just some pathetic half warn off paint declaring the shoulder a bike lane but proper isolated paths that bikes and pedestrians actually use.  The visual design of the streets also invites people to use it (people not just motorists), streets are not just an empty desolate concrete slab but is visually appealing to humans.

Spend some time with street view here (https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1977409,4.7511137,2021m/data=!3m1!1e3) not the town I was in but just some random small town I zoomed in on.  You can see the streets are made with all possible users in mind.

The weather in The Netherlands is also far more moderate than most places in the US. The average low temp in January is 33F, and the average high temp in August is 71F. Places in the US can see averages 30 degrees colder or warmer than that which can make it pretty unpleasant to be a pedestrian or cyclist.. Some places see both lower lows and higher highs (Chicago averages 10 degrees colder in Jan and 10 degrees warmer during in Aug).

[Just Joe]

The weather in The Netherlands is also far more moderate than most places in the US. The average low temp in January is 33F, and the average high temp in August is 71F. Places in the US can see averages 30 degrees colder or warmer than that. Some places see lower lows and higher highs (Chicago averages 10 degrees colder in Jan and 10 degrees warmer during in Aug) which can make it pretty unpleasant to be a pedestrian or cyclist.

True but an ebike can moderate the high summer temps and hills somewhat. I ride a very strenuous route to work here in the south but I can arrive mostly sweat free even in the summer. I turn the boost up and down as a necessary to remain work place presentable and then pedal hard going home where I can shower.   

In the winter of course lots of boost will freeze a rider b/c they potentially aren't burning enough calories to stay warm.

[AlanStache]

...
The weather in The Netherlands is also far more moderate than most places in the US. The average low temp in January is 33F, and the average high temp in August is 71F. Places in the US can see averages 30 degrees colder or warmer than that which can make it pretty unpleasant to be a pedestrian or cyclist.. Some places see both lower lows and higher highs (Chicago averages 10 degrees colder in Jan and 10 degrees warmer during in Aug).

I biked to work yesterday and got caught in some rain, but I was dressed for it so it was a non-event.  People in Chicago already own jackets.  Netherlands also gets lots of rain.  They also have viable public transit and those that choose to drive have a very good road network, cars are not banned.  zoom around the street view you will see plenty of cars and very nice roads. 

[GuitarStv]

I bike to work in the winter here in Toronto (regularly gets into negative temperatures, but not below -10 very often).  I won't take the bike if there's been freezing rain, or if there's freezing rain forecasted . . . but the actual cold weather cycling isn't all that bad.  The problem is that you absolutely have to have a shower at the destination.  Even with the best layering approaches to winter bikewear you're going to end up sweating a ton.

[AlanStache]

I bike to work in the winter here in Toronto (regularly gets into negative temperatures, but not below -10 very often).  I won't take the bike if there's been freezing rain, or if there's freezing rain forecasted . . . but the actual cold weather cycling isn't all that bad.  The problem is that you absolutely have to have a shower at the destination.  Even with the best layering approaches to winter bikewear you're going to end up sweating a ton.

You are on a manual bike?  With my ebike I find that I can cruise at ~20 mph and am good with cool down period and a few baby wipes when I get into the office (our small office had a shower plumbed but never installed).  But have not ridden with proper winter gear yet.   I think ebikes will be a game changer for a lot of people in a lot of places.  wont solve 100% of the transportation problems but they do have a very good role to serve.