3 ms·

Maybe people like their cars and choose to live in places that accommodate them? Personally, I am something of a bicycle extremist and have always found a way

Maybe people like their cars and choose to live in places that accommodate them? Personally, I am something of a bicycle extremist and have always found a way to navigate urban/suburban areas. It is something that comes with practice. Eventually you learn how to navigate these areas you felt were impassable. With practice you develop instincts for approaching new areas. I know it will be a bit unpopular at HN, but I think you need to be something of a self-starter and willing to take the plunge. I've been on planned bike lanes that felt less safe than just riding on the street with traffic. They can create the wrong expectations for both motorists and cyclists. Naturally you would encounter political problems in developing a "car-free" city, if your prospective residents want to use their cars. Especially if you are left using political leverage to impose your ideals upon the residents. If people truly loved cycling more than the convenience of automobiles, wouldn't they develop the similar techniques for navigating urban and suburban areas? That isn't to say that more can't be done to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians, but I disagree with your absolutist analysis.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
This doesn’t address the root issue of things being too far from each other. What about all the old, young, and otherwise less mobile people getting around? How does shopping happen when everyone has a 100ft+ setback and you need to carry your groceries and whatnot that much further, for each individual property. The proof of my statement is that you can see a marked difference in the lifestyle of urban Tokyo and London and other places where the layout was made pre automobile. You can make all the bike lanes you want, but as long as you’re still placing 4+ lane roads all over the place, it’s not going to bring you the type of day to day life you can experience in dense areas. >Maybe people like their cars and choose to live in places that accommodate them? I don’t think people like their cars, so much as the knock on effects of a car oriented lifestyle. Obviously, people like detached single family houses with garages and front and back yards. Who wouldn’t. The ideal would be having this in the middle of an urban core. Obviously that’s not realistic. But the real benefits of cars come with pricing out people you may not want you and your family to deal with. You can separate into various socioeconomic classes, make it uneconomical for homeless and panhandlers to hang around since everything is so far apart. It’s definitely a valid solution to the situation in NYC/SF/SEA/PDX. I myself don’t see any other solution for a person than moving to a car oriented suburb.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  You make some reasonable points. I appreciate the catch-22. For me the absolute urban center is just too dense regardless of transportation options. It is nice to have a proximity to it, but even for a bicycle-centric life I prefer more open spaces. The solution IMHO is to cultivate a pedestrian culture, where individuals create a demand, rather than imposing it on them as a city planner. If it comes to it parking lots can easily be redeveloped. There's also the option of public transit, but that brings a proximity to the "undesirables" you mentioned. Above all strip malls, big box stores, modern bridges, overpasses and underpasses are all eyesores for me.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    >Above all strip malls, big box stores, modern bridges, overpasses and underpasses are all eyesores for me. They're an eyesore for everyone. But this is one of those situations where the local maxima for individuals results in a local minima as a society. Once you have a car, it makes no sense to not use it. And no one is going to beat big box stores on pricing. So I'm not going to spend 15% extra at my neighborhood store when I can save a ton of money by driving to Costco, with the car I already have. And I find that anything more than 30min away walking is basically not in walking distance, and in a suburb with large intersections where you have to wait 45+ seconds for light changes and cross large intersections, it's very easy to justify just driving. Especially for the old or those with little kids. I would like to think your solution would work, but I'm at the point of saying it's politically impossible (in a timeframe relevant to a voter's quality of life).

lotsofpulp 6y ago

This doesn’t address the root issue of things being too far from each other. What about all the old, young, and otherwise less mobile people getting around? How does shopping happen when everyone has a 100ft+ setback and you need to carry your groceries and whatnot that much further, for each individual property. The proof of my statement is that you can see a marked difference in the lifestyle of urban Tokyo and London and other places where the layout was made pre automobile. You can make all the bike lanes you want, but as long as you’re still placing 4+ lane roads all over the place, it’s not going to bring you the type of day to day life you can experience in dense areas. >Maybe people like their cars and choose to live in places that accommodate them? I don’t think people like their cars, so much as the knock on effects of a car oriented lifestyle. Obviously, people like detached single family houses with garages and front and back yards. Who wouldn’t. The ideal would be having this in the middle of an urban core. Obviously that’s not realistic. But the real benefits of cars come with pricing out people you may not want you and your family to deal with. You can separate into various socioeconomic classes, make it uneconomical for homeless and panhandlers to hang around since everything is so far apart. It’s definitely a valid solution to the situation in NYC/SF/SEA/PDX. I myself don’t see any other solution for a person than moving to a car oriented suburb.

aww_dang 6y ago
You make some reasonable points. I appreciate the catch-22. For me the absolute urban center is just too dense regardless of transportation options. It is nice to have a proximity to it, but even for a bicycle-centric life I prefer more open spaces. The solution IMHO is to cultivate a pedestrian culture, where individuals create a demand, rather than imposing it on them as a city planner. If it comes to it parking lots can easily be redeveloped. There's also the option of public transit, but that brings a proximity to the "undesirables" you mentioned. Above all strip malls, big box stores, modern bridges, overpasses and underpasses are all eyesores for me.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  >Above all strip malls, big box stores, modern bridges, overpasses and underpasses are all eyesores for me. They're an eyesore for everyone. But this is one of those situations where the local maxima for individuals results in a local minima as a society. Once you have a car, it makes no sense to not use it. And no one is going to beat big box stores on pricing. So I'm not going to spend 15% extra at my neighborhood store when I can save a ton of money by driving to Costco, with the car I already have. And I find that anything more than 30min away walking is basically not in walking distance, and in a suburb with large intersections where you have to wait 45+ seconds for light changes and cross large intersections, it's very easy to justify just driving. Especially for the old or those with little kids. I would like to think your solution would work, but I'm at the point of saying it's politically impossible (in a timeframe relevant to a voter's quality of life).