3 ms·

> > most every small town in Ontario is car-centric. > I don't know that I agree. For what it's worth, 'car-centric' has nothing to do with actual automobiles.

> > most every small town in Ontario is car-centric. > I don't know that I agree. For what it's worth, 'car-centric' has nothing to do with actual automobiles. "Car-centric" is coded language for "unplanned therefore affordable". Strip malls, billboard signs, 10 lane light intersections, none of this is "car-centric", none of this is designed for cars, no regular person enjoys driving through that. But it's always cheap, so it's everywhere. Those represent an absolute-cheapest-option thinking, ignoring all else. Cars are just as much an afterthought as pedestrians and bicycles and busses are. Roads that are actually designed for cars are freeways direct to other freeways, with no pedestrians and no bicycles and no oncoming traffic and no stoplights and no intersections ever and parking lots/ramps directly attached to freeway exits. It just so happens, that these are generally the safest roads too (in both US/Canada, and Europe) despite also being the fastest roads. Of course, construction of this rarely-to-never happens, "car-centric" roads rarely get built because it costs a bit more money. But a 5 lane 'arterial' road, with turn lanes and curb cuts for every random store that wants it? Slap some sidewalks and a bike lane on it? Pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers will hate that, and it's terribly unsafe for all modes, but it's always the cheapest option to go with so it's the default. And it's so cheap that every municipality in the country can build them everywhere without thinking. "Car-centric" has absolutely nothing to do with cars. "Car-centric" is complaining about areas being having the cheapest possible design (and therefore being somewhat affordable), with an unrelated jab against cars thrown in out of spite.

mmt 8y ago
I find that to be a fairly insightful (at least partial) explanation of sprawl, especially in Canada (where freeways seem to have been relatively unpopular to begin with) and in the US after the freeway "revolt" of the 70s. The US Interstate system and freeways into previously undeveloped land to create new suburbs near large cities would certainly fall under even your definition of "car-centric" design (and this could, arguably, be seen happening in Southern California to this day), but it doesn't in much of Canada. I do expect some of the design is driven by a desire by citizens to live in low density (the "to each his own" idea brought up elsewhere in the thread), and it stands to reason that people attracted to suburbs would generally be those low-density seekers and would thereby encourage more of that kind of development. However, that seems insufficient an explanation for a stand-alone town of a few thousand, that isn't a suburb of a nearby city. Is building "out" really cheaper than building "up" a couple stories? Maybe it's simpler than that, and city folk fail to understand that small enough towns are actually rural, without central sewage treatment, and every building needing substantial open space for a leach field. Even when centralizing becomes cost-effective, it may only be applicable for new growth, and it will still need land (and of a certain kind).
jkhor 8y ago
You just blew my mind. I don't necessarily know that you're right, but I'd never thought about things from this perspective before.

mmt 8y ago

I find that to be a fairly insightful (at least partial) explanation of sprawl, especially in Canada (where freeways seem to have been relatively unpopular to begin with) and in the US after the freeway "revolt" of the 70s. The US Interstate system and freeways into previously undeveloped land to create new suburbs near large cities would certainly fall under even your definition of "car-centric" design (and this could, arguably, be seen happening in Southern California to this day), but it doesn't in much of Canada. I do expect some of the design is driven by a desire by citizens to live in low density (the "to each his own" idea brought up elsewhere in the thread), and it stands to reason that people attracted to suburbs would generally be those low-density seekers and would thereby encourage more of that kind of development. However, that seems insufficient an explanation for a stand-alone town of a few thousand, that isn't a suburb of a nearby city. Is building "out" really cheaper than building "up" a couple stories? Maybe it's simpler than that, and city folk fail to understand that small enough towns are actually rural, without central sewage treatment, and every building needing substantial open space for a leach field. Even when centralizing becomes cost-effective, it may only be applicable for new growth, and it will still need land (and of a certain kind).

jkhor 8y ago

You just blew my mind. I don't necessarily know that you're right, but I'd never thought about things from this perspective before.