8 ms·
There's a bit of a trend lately around destroying transportation infrastructure to achieve vague goals. What is wrong with playing in parks?
by readams 8y ago
There's a bit of a trend lately around destroying transportation infrastructure to achieve vague goals. What is wrong with playing in parks?
- adlaigordon 8y agoThey got paved over to build a highway. Or in lots of places, were never built at all, or are too far away. So much infrastructure over the last half century is built for cars, not people. The trend you've identified is people realizing this situation and reclaiming some of the space for people instead of just cars.
- ovao 8y agoI live in Los Angeles. There are three (what I would call "average-sized") parks within 1.5 miles of the street mentioned in the article, as well as two smaller parks. At least one of them just underwent major renovation over the past six months. I couldn't say whether public parks in Los Angeles are going away in general. I'd say "likely". But I think this article somewhat incorrectly frames how dire the situation is with respect to public parks in L.A..
- CalRobert 8y agoWould you let your 8 year old kid walk 1.5 miles to the park, on their own, in LA?
- ovao 8y agoNo, I wouldn’t. I’m merely suggesting that the author is mischaracterizing the public park situation around Fickett St., and not suggesting that kids in Boyle Heights walk 1.5 miles to their local park.
- neuronexmachina 8y agoHow is sectioning off a street for a single day "destroying transportation infrastructure"? This doesn't seem that different from when roads are sectioned off for farmer's markets or parades.
- matt4077 8y agoHistorically, streets were far more than just "transportation infrastructure". They were the quintessential "public space", accommodating many different uses: transportation, yes, but not (just) cars but also bikes or pedestrians. Children playing, parents having an after-work beer with neighbors, street vendors, protests etc... If parks are available within walking distance for every child then that's preferable. But from what I remember, it rarely is in the US.
- Someone 8y agoNothing, but not all children have a park in front of their homes. And roads are transportation infrastructure, streets are to live on. That’s why the article talks about “reclaiming streets for civic live”.
- gregknicholson 8y agoYes! The distinction between roads and streets isn't made often enough.
- pound 8y agoIf that would be in San Francisco - they would be full of used syringes and aggressive psychos - not really suitable places to play in
- readams 8y agoThat's a problem created by a different breed of well-intentioned idiocy around homeless policy.
- dionidium 8y agoWell-intentioned idiocy is handing over cities to cars so completely that average people can barely remember what a city is or could be without them -- so completely that the temporary closing of 15 minor streets for another use could be described as "destroying transportation infrastructure."
- dionidium 8y agoAutomobile infrastructure has enjoyed primacy for about 70 years. What you’re really seeing is just a long-overdue return to the idea that other things matter, too. Neighborhoods aren’t places for other people to get through as quickly as possible. In other words, we’re “destroying” a bunch of transportation infrastructure that shouldn’t ever have been built in the first place (or that was originally built with a very different purpose in mind).
- gowld 8y agoTurning it around, what's wrong with parking in a city garage, and reclaiming residential infrastructure that has been lately overrun with automobiles? Why give automobiles primacy over people -- Ford Prefect's blunder?
- closeparen 8y agoThose of us who can’t afford city-center/transit-connected apartments are also people.