5 ms·

I think the whole idea is to add cost to bringing a car downtown, so fewer people will do it. The proposition is that the harm this does to suburbanites will be

I think the whole idea is to add cost to bringing a car downtown, so fewer people will do it. The proposition is that the harm this does to suburbanites will be offset by making the city more livable for it's residents, and maybe by doing so encourage suburbanites to move inward at the margin.

closeparen 9y ago
What city (that would plausibly do this) doesn't have a rent crisis? The people who get a more "livable" city (where livable apparently does not include navigable) are those who can pay the most. The people who get locked out of the city are those who can pay the least. Few suburbanites could afford a bedroom per child in the city center, yet this is standard in the suburbs. This is under current prices; think how much worse they'd get if every suburban resident was trying to move in. The city is going to be less livable if people have to pay higher portions of their incomes for less space, and waste more of their lives in transit. We should do this so some people paying $3500/mo rents don't suffer the indignity of looking at a parked car?
- obstinate 9y ago
  There's obviously a balance to be struck. But motorists kill a lot of people, make a lot of noise and pollution, and use a lot of infrastructure that city-dwellers must pay to maintain. So I think it is not out of bounds to consider reducing the footprint of a city that is dedicated to them. To the extent demand supports it, there will still be private parking and valet services. I'm not worried about the housing costs issue. I think it is likely that any city council able to overcome the action-potential of banning cars will also be quite pro-housing.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    Banning cars and banning new housing have precisely the same motivation: to protect and increase quality of life for existing urban residents at the expense of everyone else. The kind of city council that imposes height limits and lot coverage maximums (tall apartment buildings and their residents are considered noise, shadow, and cultural pollution) is the most likely to ban cars.

closeparen 9y ago

What city (that would plausibly do this) doesn't have a rent crisis? The people who get a more "livable" city (where livable apparently does not include navigable) are those who can pay the most. The people who get locked out of the city are those who can pay the least. Few suburbanites could afford a bedroom per child in the city center, yet this is standard in the suburbs. This is under current prices; think how much worse they'd get if every suburban resident was trying to move in. The city is going to be less livable if people have to pay higher portions of their incomes for less space, and waste more of their lives in transit. We should do this so some people paying $3500/mo rents don't suffer the indignity of looking at a parked car?

obstinate 9y ago
There's obviously a balance to be struck. But motorists kill a lot of people, make a lot of noise and pollution, and use a lot of infrastructure that city-dwellers must pay to maintain. So I think it is not out of bounds to consider reducing the footprint of a city that is dedicated to them. To the extent demand supports it, there will still be private parking and valet services. I'm not worried about the housing costs issue. I think it is likely that any city council able to overcome the action-potential of banning cars will also be quite pro-housing.
- closeparen 9y ago
  Banning cars and banning new housing have precisely the same motivation: to protect and increase quality of life for existing urban residents at the expense of everyone else. The kind of city council that imposes height limits and lot coverage maximums (tall apartment buildings and their residents are considered noise, shadow, and cultural pollution) is the most likely to ban cars.