The math doesn't math when the city grows around car-centric design. All the extra space taken up to separate people from unpleasant high-speed roadways, all the huge parking lots, the extremely-wide roads, it pushes travel times up so much that between the extra distance between everything, and the time spent earning money to pay hundreds a month to have a car (insurance, depreciation, maintenance, gas) ends up significantly exceeding the benefits of car ownership.
They're wildly nice if only a few people have them. The more do, and the more parts of a city cater to cars, the worse they get, even as they also become totally necessary (so, not having them also gets far, far worse, even untenable).
I was introduced to this notion reading an analysis from some French social-philosopher and was initially like "that... can't be right, surely?" so ran conservative numbers on my own situation, with an average-or-better commute distance for my city, a cheap paid-off car, and nearly double median individual income for my city, and... yep, dude was right, living in a city designed around cars was costing me time, not saving it. It'd be a ton worse for people with worse commutes and lower-earning jobs. They were getting totally screwed on the deal.
It’s an extremely common pattern for alcoholic drinks, to the point that a man ordering a very sweet drink or a woman ordering neat whisky is likely to draw comments (not even necessarily negative ones, especially in the case of a woman preferring usually-masculine drinks). It’s also present in wine marketing—the lower end of the market has heavily feminine-coded marketing and tends to be very sweet (at least in the US), and in fact that aligns with actual preferences I’ve observed (I’m not sure I know a single woman who prefers dry wines?)
Chocolate (dark vs milk) and coffee drinks (heavy on milk and sugar versus light on them, or black) follow similar patterns in perception (and actual observed preferences, IME)
Of course, how much of that is nature versus socialization is another matter… but also, the kind of risk-taking and one-upsmanship behavior that might drive men to be more willing to acquire tastes for things that aren’t initially appealing and to so-expand their palates may itself be hormonal, so even one plausible “nurture” cause for this might actually be “nature” one step removed.
But either way, and even if data doesn’t bear any of that out (pretty sure it would, though), the perception that all that’s generally true is certainly common.
They're wildly nice if only a few people have them. The more do, and the more parts of a city cater to cars, the worse they get, even as they also become totally necessary (so, not having them also gets far, far worse, even untenable).
I was introduced to this notion reading an analysis from some French social-philosopher and was initially like "that... can't be right, surely?" so ran conservative numbers on my own situation, with an average-or-better commute distance for my city, a cheap paid-off car, and nearly double median individual income for my city, and... yep, dude was right, living in a city designed around cars was costing me time, not saving it. It'd be a ton worse for people with worse commutes and lower-earning jobs. They were getting totally screwed on the deal.