> makes the city hostile to all except automobiles. That's simply not true. I saw that working extremely well in downtown Vancouver nearly a decade ago. Parkin

> makes the city hostile to all except automobiles. That's simply not true. I saw that working extremely well in downtown Vancouver nearly a decade ago. Parking can easily coexist with apartments and shopping and it can get the cars off the streets, increasing space for everyone. > Zero tailpipe emissions. Yes, because that's what a city needs to care about. Everything else is not city politics. > Your plan would make your theoretical town less walkable and bikeable and force former cyclists and pedestrians to drive EVs. That's simply not true. Offering enough parking decks (and, e.g., garages in apartment buildings) will remove parked cars from the streets. This gives space for slow bikes and pedestrians. Reducing the default speed will make live much better for fast bikes (I consider myself part of the latter group, btw. I speak out of experience). > This would make the city less economically productive per sq km. Since when is that suddenly an argument? First of all, taxes mostly go to the country, where I live. Second, the most economical mode if living would mean to move into some barracks close to the office, and third, transportation already plays a bigger role for local economy than density of living. > Plus people can actually live in the latter. Is there a housing shortage in your city? There sure is one in mine. I bet you are one of these people that buy the argument that building more roads leads to more congestion. Did it ever occur to you that building apartments could actually worsen the housing crisis? Your proposal, to make cities walkable, inevitably increases the housing shortage and yields extremely dense quarters - something I would not consider livable at all. A city should have an upper limit of people per sqkm as it should have a minimum level of green and parks.