4 ms·

Cars are not the cause of the issue with cities, cars are symptom of bad zoning and regulation which more times than not prevents owners of property from doing

Cars are not the cause of the issue with cities, cars are symptom of bad zoning and regulation which more times than not prevents owners of property from doing what they want. when every new building requires effectively bring special interest groups, politicians, regulatory boards, and unions, their due is it a surprise cities are not getting better. they are serving a politically connected elite, not the people who live there or want to live there.

ahoy 8y ago
I'd like to offer the argument that automakers/sellers are a "special interest group" who has had an outsized impact on the shape of american cities for the past century.
knowuh 8y ago
Why is this the top comment? It hasn't been edited. I can't even decipher it.
linuxftw 8y ago
I agree. Cars are a solution to a (set of) problem. Remove the problem(s), remove the cars. Cars, also, not really that big of a problem in themselves. Commuting is the problem. This is a symptom of depressed wages; people are willing to spend extra time (commute) in place of extra money (rent).
- bluGill 8y ago
  People are willing to spend time on the car commute because zoning won't allow you a good job to exist within walking distance of a house. Shopping isn't allowed within walking distance of either of the above either. We are back to square one: zoning won't allow anything other than car oriented lifestyles. It is a self reinforcing vicious cycle. You can break it anywhere. I recommend started with breaking zoning because it is least painful. If you eliminate cars people who currently depend on cars will be in trouble since they cannot live their life. Eliminate the need far cars is a much slower thing that won't have any noticeable affect for 20 years, but it is a much less painful transition.
  - linuxftw 8y ago
    I think the system will eventually collapse under it's own weight. When enough people have 'had enough.' First step is to eliminate eminent domain. More infrastructure only begets more people using said infrastructure. When the many can't take from the few, they might actually have to give up some of their luxuries to have what they want (eg, a place to work).
falcolas 8y ago
> prevents owners of property from doing what they want As someone who has, in the past, been a neighbor to an unofficial junkyard (unzoned land), and as a person who currently only has houses for neighbors (zoned) thank god people can't do whatever they want.
- fbonetti 8y ago
  There’s a middle ground between living next to a landfill and living a city that has been so completely ossified by zoning that no new housing can be built.
  - falcolas 8y ago
    Sure, but that middle ground is not, as the OP suggested, no zoning whatsoever.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    That middle ground would be a responsive government that well represents the desires of it's citizens.
michaelt 8y ago
In cites like Los Angeles, cars are part of a feedback loop which makes them both symptom and cause. Los Angeles is low-density partly because it spends lots of land on roads and parking lots. It needs lots of roads and parking lots because everyone drives. And everyone drives because the city is low density.
- asdff 8y ago
  The solution is to bite the bullet and build the rails. They didn't build highways to already existing suburbs in the valley or where wildfires have been roasting for 100s of years; those things popped up because the land was empty and the highway made building possible. If you build the rails and zone the area by the rail for density, a developer looking to drop a 15 story apartment is going to want to put it by the rail. Even better if you nix the rule about having to build parking if they build close enough to the rail. You can't do anything without the rail being built first.
  - sershe 8y ago
    The solution to bite the bullet though is economic incentive - tax driving more, eliminate parking, etc. The pain should come first; otherwise, why would anyone (in sufficient numbers) bite the bullet?
rootusrootus 8y ago
People who merely want to live somewhere don't yet have a voice in how that place is governed. This is good. Gov't should represent the interests of the citizens in it's jurisdiction.
- magduf 8y ago
  No, it shouldn't, because then you get the problem most cities in America have: too many commuters creating too much traffic, and not enough high-density housing. SanFran is the poster child for this. A better method is what they have in Japan, where local government has almost no power at all to control how land is used.

ahoy 8y ago

I'd like to offer the argument that automakers/sellers are a "special interest group" who has had an outsized impact on the shape of american cities for the past century.

knowuh 8y ago

Why is this the top comment? It hasn't been edited. I can't even decipher it.

linuxftw 8y ago

I agree. Cars are a solution to a (set of) problem. Remove the problem(s), remove the cars. Cars, also, not really that big of a problem in themselves. Commuting is the problem. This is a symptom of depressed wages; people are willing to spend extra time (commute) in place of extra money (rent).

bluGill 8y ago
People are willing to spend time on the car commute because zoning won't allow you a good job to exist within walking distance of a house. Shopping isn't allowed within walking distance of either of the above either. We are back to square one: zoning won't allow anything other than car oriented lifestyles. It is a self reinforcing vicious cycle. You can break it anywhere. I recommend started with breaking zoning because it is least painful. If you eliminate cars people who currently depend on cars will be in trouble since they cannot live their life. Eliminate the need far cars is a much slower thing that won't have any noticeable affect for 20 years, but it is a much less painful transition.
- linuxftw 8y ago
  I think the system will eventually collapse under it's own weight. When enough people have 'had enough.' First step is to eliminate eminent domain. More infrastructure only begets more people using said infrastructure. When the many can't take from the few, they might actually have to give up some of their luxuries to have what they want (eg, a place to work).

falcolas 8y ago

> prevents owners of property from doing what they want As someone who has, in the past, been a neighbor to an unofficial junkyard (unzoned land), and as a person who currently only has houses for neighbors (zoned) thank god people can't do whatever they want.

fbonetti 8y ago
There’s a middle ground between living next to a landfill and living a city that has been so completely ossified by zoning that no new housing can be built.
- falcolas 8y ago
  Sure, but that middle ground is not, as the OP suggested, no zoning whatsoever.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  That middle ground would be a responsive government that well represents the desires of it's citizens.

michaelt 8y ago

In cites like Los Angeles, cars are part of a feedback loop which makes them both symptom and cause. Los Angeles is low-density partly because it spends lots of land on roads and parking lots. It needs lots of roads and parking lots because everyone drives. And everyone drives because the city is low density.

asdff 8y ago
The solution is to bite the bullet and build the rails. They didn't build highways to already existing suburbs in the valley or where wildfires have been roasting for 100s of years; those things popped up because the land was empty and the highway made building possible. If you build the rails and zone the area by the rail for density, a developer looking to drop a 15 story apartment is going to want to put it by the rail. Even better if you nix the rule about having to build parking if they build close enough to the rail. You can't do anything without the rail being built first.
- sershe 8y ago
  The solution to bite the bullet though is economic incentive - tax driving more, eliminate parking, etc. The pain should come first; otherwise, why would anyone (in sufficient numbers) bite the bullet?

rootusrootus 8y ago

People who merely want to live somewhere don't yet have a voice in how that place is governed. This is good. Gov't should represent the interests of the citizens in it's jurisdiction.

magduf 8y ago
No, it shouldn't, because then you get the problem most cities in America have: too many commuters creating too much traffic, and not enough high-density housing. SanFran is the poster child for this. A better method is what they have in Japan, where local government has almost no power at all to control how land is used.