4 ms·
There seem to be two opposed predictions of the effects of the SDC. In your view, shared by many technocrats, is that the SDC solves the negative problems of c
by trgn 11y ago
There seem to be two opposed predictions of the effects of the SDC.
In your view, shared by many technocrats, is that the SDC solves the negative problems of cars now: time now spent driving in an SDC can be spent reading, working, having breakfast, ... there's also the reasonable assumption that future cars will be electric, so the negative environmental effects of suburbs will be reduced. And SDCs will use the road more efficiently, reducing congestion, be safer, etc.. etc.. The way people lead their lives is more or less the same, but the SDC makes it better.
Many urbanists hold - paradoxically - the opposite view. The SDC will kill the suburb. They assume that the SDC will operate on a rental model. SDC's will basically be taxis. The reasoning is, that when people no longer own a car, they have no need for a garage. So why live somewhere that is completely designed for cars? Parking minimums will no longer be required and safer (and slower) SV traffic will make being out&about on a bike or two feet much more pleasant. The quality of city living, in other words, will hugely improve because we don't need to dedicate so much effort/time/money in storing and maintaining a car. Cities can be scaled around humans again, and not around cars sitting idle for 90% of the time. The role that suburbs serve - a place that's convenient to own a car - will no longer be necessary. Plus, the SDC does not really solve the major problem of the suburb; the long term financial commitment (public&private) to maintain the infrastructure required to support sprawl.
Both are positive predictions, so win-win?
The outcome will probably be somewhere in between, but IMO the SDC won't save the suburb. The popularity of the suburbs is particular to certain historical factors that likely will not repeat; (1) urban renewal and the willful destruction of downtowns to accommodate cars, (2) school flight of young families. For (1), only the old guard in fly-over country still thinks more infrastructure is better. They're almost dead. And (2) has been played out. City schools can only improve, and suburban schools will lose their competitive advantage once the affluent start moving back closer to downtown.
I also expect the real effect of the SDC will not be felt in the trendy coastal cities where urbanity was preserved. It will happen in all the mid-size metros where the core has emptied out and ended up basically 95% strip mall. For example, drive-till-you-qualify is hilariously irrelevant in many US metros. A lot of opportunity for an inversion of the dynamics.
- UVB-76 11y agoI think your view of car ownership and the suburbs is the wrong way round. In my experience, people in the suburbs own cars because they have to in order to live in the suburbs. They don't move to the suburbs because they own cars, and want somewhere to store them. The traditional appeal of the suburb (or the 'countryside') will endure. More space, lower crime rates, fewer neighbors, more privacy, better schools, a stronger sense of community, etc. If anything, the self-driving car will make the suburbs more attractive, as fewer cars will litter the place, paved-over front gardens can be returned to nature, etc.
- trgn 11y agoI think the argument of the urbanists is that land use pattern is designed to accommodate cars. Once that is no longer required (because people no longer need to own cars), there be no reason for the parking lots and driveways and all that, much of the suburbs become wasted space. Not sure if that will be considered an asset, rather, it will be a liability. Unless you can live in one of the rich suburbs, there's very little "countryside" in the suburbs I know. Traffic yes, noise yes, plus houses are generally not even that far away from each other so all there isn't much privacy. If anything, you're on display more than anything. You arrive at home, and everybody has heard it, and seen it. But certainly, you might be right. Suppose telecommuting and flex time gets adopted more, absolutely, it's possible the SDC saves the suburb. But the car has ruined city life for more reasons than just creating crappy commutes. The appeal of the suburbs is precisely because city streets being are so wretched due to being giving over to the car. Hence the appeal of a quiet cul-de-sac. Once the city is no longer lined by sewers for high-speed noisy, stinky, dangerous cars, the appeal of the city increases, and the appeal for the suburb correspondingly decreases, that's my bet (and many others' whose view I only parrot here, basically any new urbanist, traditionalist, most under 40 planners)
- baldfat 11y ago> a stronger sense of community I would say that Cities have 100 times more community. I grew up in the Burbs and my friends live there now. I ask them who their neighbors are and they all say I don't know and I don't care.