3 ms·
There is a small portent here of something I think we should be cautious of: > The space that is currently used for car parks could be used for something else.
by aerovistae 9y ago
There is a small portent here of something I think we should be cautious of:
> The space that is currently used for car parks could be used for something else.
We should be careful that this space does not uniformly end up being used for yet more skyscrapers and office buildings, but open space and parks instead. I feel like this is a major decision moment for ending up with beautiful cities or dark cyberpunk monstrosities.
- rwmj 9y agoWhy's that a bad thing? Increased density in cities means more space for nature in the countryside.
- majewsky 9y ago1. Green areas in the city improve air quality. 2. I don't want to have to travel 30+ minutes to see more than a single tree in one place. Frequent access to nature (or a sufficiently advanced facsimile) is life quality. 3. If a city is sufficiently large, traveling to its outside may be prohibitively expensive for poor people who are thus barred from experiencing nature. (This concern affects developing countries and sci-fi dystopias more than current developed countries.)
- arkades 9y agoIt’s not like #3 hasn’t happened before. Central Park is so far north in Manhattan because it was originally meant to be inaccessible to those without the means to afford a carriage.
- mhandley 9y agoEven if we still need car parks, cars parking themselves can park really close together (no need to open doors), and block each other in (they'll move autonomously to let another car out). If you go multi-story, you could have some floors with a really low ceiling where regular (non-SUV) cars could park at a lower price. I'd bet you'd need a lot less space for the same number of cars.