6 ms·

> That or just let car people (majority) have these areas that are good for cars and The idea is that a well planned city/suburb will turn car people into peop

by calt 5y ago

> That or just let car people (majority) have these areas that are good for cars and The idea is that a well planned city/suburb will turn car people into people that also enjoy safely not using a car some of the time. > let the anti car people have their crowded little streets with no parking elsewhere. Bleh. Such an us vs them mentality. I'm suspicious of cars because I have literally gotten hit by them while cycling (edit: multiple times, thank you very much). I'm not "anti car." Try getting hit by 2 tons of metal and see how that makes you feel about safe infrastructure.

josephcsible 5y ago
> Bleh. Such an us vs them mentality. Doesn't the "us vs. them" mentality come from the fact that most of Strong Towns' ideas will make life worse for everyone who needs to drive, without giving most of them an alternative to driving?
- Rendello 5y ago
  > Strong Towns' ideas will make life worse for anyone who drives into the city, with basically no advantages for them, and without creating a viable alternative to driving for most of them? That's not necessarily a given: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k
  - calt 5y ago
    TLDW: A city that is less reliant on cars actually reduces congestion and makes it more pleasant to drive in a city. Fewer cars on the road means less competition. Bike lanes have more capacity to move people. Well designed intersections and bike lanes mean that you aren't competing against cyclists and pedestrians for road space you're coexisting along just fine.
  - davidrhunt 5y ago
    I was just tracking down this exact link. Thanks for sharing.
- ben-schaaf 5y ago
  The whole point is to provide better alternatives to driving such that most people don't need to drive. Having better alternatives to driving also makes driving better as you get less congestion, licensing standards can be raised, there's more money for road maintenance, well designed roads are simply better to drive on, etc.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > such that most people don't need to drive I disagree that they'll accomplish this for most people. In particular, what about all of the people who live in suburbs but work in the city?
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      Urbanists are extremely critical of the type of zoning that plonks suburbs in the middle of nowhere away from cities too. "R1 Zone" is practically a swear word. Mixed-use zoning is much more effective. We do this in Europe, it's pretty nice being able to cycle to work and walk to the shops (not that I cycle to work personally, but almost all my jobs have been within cycling range).
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        But those suburbs already exist. What should we do for all of the people who already live in them? (And keep in mind that there's usually a good reason that people chose to not just live in an inner city in the first place.)
        athrun 5y ago
        Strong Town's argument is that some of these suburbs will be successful in encouraging mixed-use development and in doing so will expand their tax bases. But most of the others will fail and decline. ST are quite explicit that they mostly don't think that retrofitting suburbs should be a focus, because they believe that most of these will go bankrupt anyway, given a sufficient amount of time (because of too much infrastructure liability compared to the tax base), and indeed this is starting to happen all across the US. Hence their focus on areas with a solid core already, that should then be strengthened and encouraged to expand organically from there.
- tylermenezes 5y ago
  Most of strong towns's ideas come down to making it legal to build with anything except stroads. Give people options instead of forcing it on everyone except the most wealthy who can afford a house in the pre-car cities.
zionic 5y ago
> I'm suspicious of cars because I have literally gotten hit by them while cycling This is entirely the fault of bike culture in the US. Outside of inner city/25mph limit roads a bicycle has no place being on a normal road. 55mph+ 3 ton metal machines and tiny bikes with no bumpers or crumple zones don’t mix. It’s perfectly legal to do, and technically the person hitting you is in the wrong, but all your friends will think you’re stupid for risking your life in this way even if they don’t say it.
- Scott_Sanderson 5y ago
  Car culture apology bullshit. Why aren't there safe places for bikes and peds on those roads too? Why should cars have all the space to the point where it is practically suicidal to be outside a car?
  - zionic 5y ago
    They’re called sidewalks (for pedestrians). Bike paths are also a thing. We’ve built our society around cars, and it’s enabled a much higher quality of life. Mass transit sucks. I’ve been to pretty much every tier-I city on the planet and the ones that really pushed transit (Hong Kong comes to mind) were by far the worst. In the US roads and interstates were built for cars. We love being able to leave when we want, not worry about the weather, and have large homes far (in miles, not time… thanks again cars) from city centers. Bikes do not belong on high speed automotive networks, it slows everyone else down and is extremely dangerous for the cyclist.
    - caskstrength 5y ago
      > Mass transit sucks. I’ve been to pretty much every tier-I city on the planet and the ones that really pushed transit (Hong Kong comes to mind) were by far the worst. Strange. I've also been to some "tier-I" cities myself and liked the ones that really pushed transit the most (Tokyo comes to mind).

by calt 5y ago

josephcsible 5y ago

> Bleh. Such an us vs them mentality. Doesn't the "us vs. them" mentality come from the fact that most of Strong Towns' ideas will make life worse for everyone who needs to drive, without giving most of them an alternative to driving?

Rendello 5y ago
> Strong Towns' ideas will make life worse for anyone who drives into the city, with basically no advantages for them, and without creating a viable alternative to driving for most of them? That's not necessarily a given: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k
- calt 5y ago
  TLDW: A city that is less reliant on cars actually reduces congestion and makes it more pleasant to drive in a city. Fewer cars on the road means less competition. Bike lanes have more capacity to move people. Well designed intersections and bike lanes mean that you aren't competing against cyclists and pedestrians for road space you're coexisting along just fine.
- davidrhunt 5y ago
  I was just tracking down this exact link. Thanks for sharing.
ben-schaaf 5y ago
The whole point is to provide better alternatives to driving such that most people don't need to drive. Having better alternatives to driving also makes driving better as you get less congestion, licensing standards can be raised, there's more money for road maintenance, well designed roads are simply better to drive on, etc.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > such that most people don't need to drive I disagree that they'll accomplish this for most people. In particular, what about all of the people who live in suburbs but work in the city?
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    Urbanists are extremely critical of the type of zoning that plonks suburbs in the middle of nowhere away from cities too. "R1 Zone" is practically a swear word. Mixed-use zoning is much more effective. We do this in Europe, it's pretty nice being able to cycle to work and walk to the shops (not that I cycle to work personally, but almost all my jobs have been within cycling range).
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      But those suburbs already exist. What should we do for all of the people who already live in them? (And keep in mind that there's usually a good reason that people chose to not just live in an inner city in the first place.)
      - athrun 5y ago
        Strong Town's argument is that some of these suburbs will be successful in encouraging mixed-use development and in doing so will expand their tax bases. But most of the others will fail and decline. ST are quite explicit that they mostly don't think that retrofitting suburbs should be a focus, because they believe that most of these will go bankrupt anyway, given a sufficient amount of time (because of too much infrastructure liability compared to the tax base), and indeed this is starting to happen all across the US. Hence their focus on areas with a solid core already, that should then be strengthened and encouraged to expand organically from there.
tylermenezes 5y ago
Most of strong towns's ideas come down to making it legal to build with anything except stroads. Give people options instead of forcing it on everyone except the most wealthy who can afford a house in the pre-car cities.

zionic 5y ago

> I'm suspicious of cars because I have literally gotten hit by them while cycling This is entirely the fault of bike culture in the US. Outside of inner city/25mph limit roads a bicycle has no place being on a normal road. 55mph+ 3 ton metal machines and tiny bikes with no bumpers or crumple zones don’t mix. It’s perfectly legal to do, and technically the person hitting you is in the wrong, but all your friends will think you’re stupid for risking your life in this way even if they don’t say it.

Scott_Sanderson 5y ago
Car culture apology bullshit. Why aren't there safe places for bikes and peds on those roads too? Why should cars have all the space to the point where it is practically suicidal to be outside a car?
- zionic 5y ago
  They’re called sidewalks (for pedestrians). Bike paths are also a thing. We’ve built our society around cars, and it’s enabled a much higher quality of life. Mass transit sucks. I’ve been to pretty much every tier-I city on the planet and the ones that really pushed transit (Hong Kong comes to mind) were by far the worst. In the US roads and interstates were built for cars. We love being able to leave when we want, not worry about the weather, and have large homes far (in miles, not time… thanks again cars) from city centers. Bikes do not belong on high speed automotive networks, it slows everyone else down and is extremely dangerous for the cyclist.
  - caskstrength 5y ago
    > Mass transit sucks. I’ve been to pretty much every tier-I city on the planet and the ones that really pushed transit (Hong Kong comes to mind) were by far the worst. Strange. I've also been to some "tier-I" cities myself and liked the ones that really pushed transit the most (Tokyo comes to mind).