4 ms·
Sure, but assuming there was little traffic and there was plenty of parking available? My point is that when comparing imperfect reality with perfect "grass on
by agent008t 7y ago
Sure, but assuming there was little traffic and there was plenty of parking available?
My point is that when comparing imperfect reality with perfect "grass on the other side", the "other side" will likely win. For example, given the unaffordability and small size/low quality of dwellings available in London, American perfectly manicured suburbs with plenty of space and big open highways may start to look somewhat appealing.
In the end, it all depends on the actual reality of it - how busy the roads are, how easy it is to find parking, how clean/nice/empty/reliable the public transport is etc. Idealizing one option over the others as can be seen in this thread seems silly. If there is a "silver bullet", it is probably in decentralizing work more such that more people can walk/cycle to work while living in a nice village, while also having clean/fast/efficient public transportation available as well as a great road system to reach the more remote locations / get to places when a car is just more convenient.
- AstralStorm 7y agoAssumption would require razing whole city, with costs to all other users, especially pedestrians. So no, it is not going to happen. Even with new laws requiring buildings to provide underground parking places, it won't be enough. It's never enough. The suburbs exist in Greater London area too, just as they do near Warsaw. They have similar style to American ones, but more nearby services and are built in clusters. That makes them much more accessible to foot traffic.