4 ms·

The conservative chant, as if space in a city is not an ultimate zero-sum game. Any "pro something else" eventually butts up against having 80% of space and 110

• sokoloff 5y ago
  Sure, but I think people are generally more sympathetic to "here is something that people want and aren't getting; I'd like us to consider letting the people have some of that" (the pro-whatever angle, even if that is inevitably anti-car in implementation) than they are to "I think that cars are currently too convenient and should be made less convenient" (the anti-car angle). It's the difference between "I want this thing I don't have" (understandable/evokes empathy) versus "I don't want others to have the thing they have" (much less understandable and evokes almost no empathy).
  • adrianN 5y ago
    That just leads to the "oh yes that's a good idea, let's form a working group!" response but never leads to actual change because that would require taking space away from cars.
    • sokoloff 5y ago
      Taking space/utility away from a current use that's broadly viewed as beneficial (or at least necessary) and experienced by many as a net-positive will require some level of consensus-building [and why-explaining]. I (and the article) suggested a path that I think is more likely to succeed at that necessary (if annoying) step. But if you think a more direct, anti-car strategy will work better, I'm not anti- your anti-car strategy. I'm pro "tell me what you want instead that would be better" because I think that's more likely to succeed.