3 ms·
I think the article's authors would say that you have it backwards. You can't have acceptable alternatives while cities are forcing businesses and developers to
by curun1r 10y ago
I think the article's authors would say that you have it backwards. You can't have acceptable alternatives while cities are forcing businesses and developers to subsidize car driving. How can the alternatives compete when the market is subsidizing their competition?
What this article is positing is that the conditions you describe are emergent, not determining. Change the policies and the conditions will adjust after a brief, albeit painful period.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jhayward 10y ago> Change the policies and the conditions will adjust after a brief, albeit painful period. This is an unproven assertion, which in my view is most likely political dogma rather than analysis. Take a look at parking and alternative transportation in Philadelphia, for instance. It's nothing but pain for everyone and has been for at least 30 years. City zoning codes requiring off-street parking on a per-dwelling or per-sq foot basis at least has the aspect of not letting the situation deteriorate into unlivable squalor, with no good alternatives. It may be that this pushes the problem to the transportation network, true, but that's a different problem to solve. If you want to take away, or let developer profit-driven markets take away a major quality of life issue then you'd better provide a better, cheaper, more individually useful alternative first.