3 ms·

> For such a capitalist country as the US, the die-hard attachment to free or overcheap parking is really odd. The US is also a country defined by an extreme a

> For such a capitalist country as the US, the die-hard attachment to free or overcheap parking is really odd. The US is also a country defined by an extreme attention to individual freedom and personal liberty. It's practically a meme that "Americans love Freedom" (using the American definition of 'Freedom'). Limiting parking in any way is, in practice, a very real limitation on a person's freedom to exist and/or move about. This is why parking is given such high attention. Obviously not every single American drives (and I'm not justifying this response, just attempting to explain it) but when you limit roads/parking, you are effectively telling the vast majority of Americans that they should never be allowed somewhere, and they react accordingly. You can think of this as like the American version of how France has major protests/riots whenever their leadership does something really bad/unpopular against the citizens.

CalRobert 8y ago
By this logic I should get free hotel rooms when I visit places.
- maxsilver 8y ago
  You effectively do, in that we pay for lots of private spaces for the general public to use. This is the same logic that makes Public Libraries free to all, even if you aren't a resident of that city or state. Public Restrooms, too, and so on. If your argument is that we should have stronger public housing, to mimic public parking and/or for consistency sake -- I agree 100%.
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    Please tell me where to find these free hotels. What a sucker I've been paying for rooms my entire life.
    - coraltime 8y ago
      maxsilver was not claiming that cities currently offer free hotel rooms as you're implying, but rather that cities already provide adjacent services---suggesting that free hotel rooms might not be a totally crazy idea---and that in general we ought to have stronger public housing. Do you disagree? Why?
    - lazerpants 8y ago
      Most Wal-Marts will allow you to park a vehicle overnight and sleep in it, so, essentially a free hotel room. Alternatively, most cities have shelters, you could look into staying in one of them.
oftenwrong 8y ago
That is how many Americans view it. They do not see that freedom to drive everywhere and park for free is at odds with other freedoms, such as the freedom of not needing to spend a large amount of money on a car and fuel.
- maxsilver 8y ago
  > Freedom to drive everywhere and park for free is at odds with other freedoms It's not. People want to create a narrative that there is a tension between them, one or the other. (Urbanists hate cars because they hate cars, so they want to define every argument as requiring a hatred of cars to make any progress on anything else, to suit their religious beliefs. Every blog post on StrongTowns is a good example of this). But you can always do both well, we just choose not to. Chicago Loop, while not perfect or ideal, is a great example of how an urban environment could look that serves all well. It is dense, highly walkable, highly transit oriented. But it also still has a strong network of freeways and has an entire underground network of roads and tunnels for cars to pour into/out of (where they can peacefully exist just a few feet above/below walkability and transit, without ever hurting any of it). As those cars electrify, all noise and pollution problems are slowly but steadily disappearing. In many ways, it is the closest to an American city ideal. Which I would define as a place where it is 100% convenient to use any transportation method you wish, at any time you wish, with as few-to-no restrictions as possible.
  - candu 8y ago
    > Urbanists hate cars because they hate cars There's a great 99% Invisible episode that's relevant here: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern-moloch/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern... That's right - before cars became the de facto way to get around, they were compared to Moloch. Any "hate" modern urbanists might have for the car has nothing on early 20th-century posters featuring death, cape billowing, riding a demonic-looking car as it mows down hapless children. I'd say, more accurately, that urbanists are investigating out what the balance of harm vs. benefit is here so they can propose ways to bring back some user-friendliness to our rights-of-way. They're revisiting the assumption that cars, rather than people, should be the primary focus in designing cities. Put another way: IMHO, cars represent a local maximum in transportation outcomes. There's a lot that's great about them: independence, mobility, ease of use supported by robust infrastructure. There's a lot that isn't so great: long commute times, pollution, noise, sedentary lifestyles, urban sprawl, collisions causing death or injury. I fully expect humanity will outlive the car, just like it's outlived any number of other transportation methods, and it's in our collective best interest to start thinking about what that means.

CalRobert 8y ago

By this logic I should get free hotel rooms when I visit places.

maxsilver 8y ago
You effectively do, in that we pay for lots of private spaces for the general public to use. This is the same logic that makes Public Libraries free to all, even if you aren't a resident of that city or state. Public Restrooms, too, and so on. If your argument is that we should have stronger public housing, to mimic public parking and/or for consistency sake -- I agree 100%.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  Please tell me where to find these free hotels. What a sucker I've been paying for rooms my entire life.
  - coraltime 8y ago
    maxsilver was not claiming that cities currently offer free hotel rooms as you're implying, but rather that cities already provide adjacent services---suggesting that free hotel rooms might not be a totally crazy idea---and that in general we ought to have stronger public housing. Do you disagree? Why?
  - lazerpants 8y ago
    Most Wal-Marts will allow you to park a vehicle overnight and sleep in it, so, essentially a free hotel room. Alternatively, most cities have shelters, you could look into staying in one of them.

oftenwrong 8y ago

That is how many Americans view it. They do not see that freedom to drive everywhere and park for free is at odds with other freedoms, such as the freedom of not needing to spend a large amount of money on a car and fuel.

maxsilver 8y ago
> Freedom to drive everywhere and park for free is at odds with other freedoms It's not. People want to create a narrative that there is a tension between them, one or the other. (Urbanists hate cars because they hate cars, so they want to define every argument as requiring a hatred of cars to make any progress on anything else, to suit their religious beliefs. Every blog post on StrongTowns is a good example of this). But you can always do both well, we just choose not to. Chicago Loop, while not perfect or ideal, is a great example of how an urban environment could look that serves all well. It is dense, highly walkable, highly transit oriented. But it also still has a strong network of freeways and has an entire underground network of roads and tunnels for cars to pour into/out of (where they can peacefully exist just a few feet above/below walkability and transit, without ever hurting any of it). As those cars electrify, all noise and pollution problems are slowly but steadily disappearing. In many ways, it is the closest to an American city ideal. Which I would define as a place where it is 100% convenient to use any transportation method you wish, at any time you wish, with as few-to-no restrictions as possible.
- candu 8y ago
  > Urbanists hate cars because they hate cars There's a great 99% Invisible episode that's relevant here: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern-moloch/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern... That's right - before cars became the de facto way to get around, they were compared to Moloch. Any "hate" modern urbanists might have for the car has nothing on early 20th-century posters featuring death, cape billowing, riding a demonic-looking car as it mows down hapless children. I'd say, more accurately, that urbanists are investigating out what the balance of harm vs. benefit is here so they can propose ways to bring back some user-friendliness to our rights-of-way. They're revisiting the assumption that cars, rather than people, should be the primary focus in designing cities. Put another way: IMHO, cars represent a local maximum in transportation outcomes. There's a lot that's great about them: independence, mobility, ease of use supported by robust infrastructure. There's a lot that isn't so great: long commute times, pollution, noise, sedentary lifestyles, urban sprawl, collisions causing death or injury. I fully expect humanity will outlive the car, just like it's outlived any number of other transportation methods, and it's in our collective best interest to start thinking about what that means.