For discussion's sake, can you enumerate the amenities you're alluding to?
If it's solely in regards to public transit, I think this is largely due to cultural differences. The US still has the remnants of an individualistic frontier mentality. I don't know, but tend to think it's not by coincidence, that the better public transit systems tend to be near the eastern seaboard.
> public transit . . . individualistic frontier mentality
A century ago, most American cities had some kind of tram system. And the cities were connected by railroads - actual passenger trains. People were sold the idea of automotive independence. That notion was completely manufactured for our consumption. We didn't have the bureaucracy in place to keep mass transit in place, so when people used it less, it lost money and was largely torn out. Without bureaucracy in place to give people time to think, we're stuck with the swift wisdom of the market.
When I lived in Seattle, I was half a block from an old commuter line that's buried in asphalt now. The city just installed "innovative" light rail a few blocks away. Progress! /s
That's the point I was trying to get across. The automobile created fostered an individualistic culture related to transport that is very hard for people to give up. Most cities still have bus routes, but people generally don't want to use them if they can use a car instead.
It’s not just public transit. Walkability. Bike paths. High density - potentially mixed use types. No emphasis on lowering noise. Etc.
Basically anything you’d normally see in a Not Just Bikes video…
It’s not cultural btw. It’s corporational. It’s corporations which are driving these things - which don’t seem to have as significant of a voice in other countries.
Certainly corporations drive some of it. But I do think there's also a cultural element. I've lived all across the US and the places that lack those amenities simply don't want them from my experience. Even when they do get implemented by well-wishing civil servants, they are often openly mocked as a waste of money.
Do you think social media influencers are what drives the selection of gas stoves? That...is a very new take I've never heard.
Most people prefer gas stoves because they are better for cooking than electric. They are generally considered better for cooking because they burn hotter than electric. It's been a long time since I've worked in food service, but I can't remember a single kitchen using electric stoves to good with and for good reason. This was when gas was much more expensive than it is now and I doubt the natural gas lobby has much influence on those choices.
Gas stoves get hot faster and respond quickly when you turn the dial, that's their big advantage. But electric is hotter. Even plain resistance coil electric elements put out much more heat than gas. Try to boil a pot of water on gas vs electric and it's no contest, electric wins.
And of course, modern induction electric elements are better in every way as long as you don't mind throwing out all your cheap alluminum pots
In what sense? Both have BTU ratings to determine their capacity. Just for kicks, I looked at a few units online at a mid-range price point of about $1500. The gas ones had 18-20 kBTU burners and the electric were around 10 kBTU burners, so the gas has considerably higher output. As you say, gas is basically instantaneous once the flame is present while electric has a lag, so it's going to take longer to get to that capacity for the electric. Maybe your point is that electric transfers heat better? I couldn't find any sources on that. Add to it that the colors of the flame/heating element as a general rule of thumb for temperature, the gas is higher on the temperature spectrum.
The thing is - induction is shown to be better now. It’s faster and more powerful and doesn’t create the waste heat. There are specialty ones for woks now too - that are curved and all.
So really it is the gas lobby that is fueling this resistance to the switch. I myself used to buy into the cooking with gas was better because of all the media, my partner, and so forth. But the truth is - cooking with gas sucks for the most part. The newer induction ranges with temperature sensors and what not are actually better. And no waste heat and no toxic fumes except for what you’re cooking.
Honestly - I’m a big convert. I just need to move into a non-rental so I can install 230v induction instead of having to use 120v stuff. (Which is still good but obviously 5000w is much better than 1800w)
And if we compare shit electric to a gas stove then yeah - gas is better. But once you start using decent induction… it’s not really a problem unless you like to move your pan around a lot and even then - you can learn a different technique to get a similar effect.
I agree and almost put in discussion about induction in my first reply. But I think the difference is one of economics for most people. I realize HN probably skews towards the higher income range, so sometimes I feel like this discussion comes across as tone deaf when the median household (not person) income in the U.S. is about $67k.
The newer induction ranges are awesome. But they are very expensive by comparison to a comparable gas range. For an average person, they are probably out of range (ha) in terms of price point. Add to it that your existing cookware may not work with it, and it's a deal breaker for a lot of average people. For someone like a landlord, they will almost always go with the cheaper option. If I was renting and had the choice between an cheap electric range or gas, I'd always prefer the gas. I hope the tech progresses enough to bring the price down to be competitive in the future.
It's a lot like the discussions around heat-pumps. I love the ideas of heat pumps in homes. But I also realize the initial sticker cost is too much for people to bear. When natural gas prices have been as low as they have been in the last decade, it's hard to blame people for selecting a natural gas furnace.
I love the more efficient options, but I do think people don't always recognize they are, to an average consumer, a luxury and a hard sell when they are just trying to make ends meet. That's partly why some of the talk comes across to some as elitist and it hurts the ability to convert people.
I think the idea of walkability isn’t that you spend hours having to walk everyday to do menial tasks. It’s that you’re within very short distances of places.
If it's solely in regards to public transit, I think this is largely due to cultural differences. The US still has the remnants of an individualistic frontier mentality. I don't know, but tend to think it's not by coincidence, that the better public transit systems tend to be near the eastern seaboard.