3 ms·
The problem is not really necessarily that the car centric city exists, though it certainly has externalities related to health and the climate. The problem is
by bobthepanda 5y ago
The problem is not really necessarily that the car centric city exists, though it certainly has externalities related to health and the climate.
The problem is that only the car centric city exists. Nice walkable places are in extremely short supply and fetch a premium, and so there exist people who buy into the detached house, car centric lifestyle because it is the only thing available at their price point. It is illegal to build the traditional way in most of the country’s land. And making it simply legal to build does not mean that the people who like this lifestyle will be forced to densify.
- harpersealtako 5y agoThis is the crux of the issue. I've said it before in HN, but urban density advocates need to focus more on why denser urban neighborhoods are good, rather than focusing on why car-centric suburbs are bad. New urbanists need the support of suburbanites whether they want to admit it or not, railing against people who like having space and privacy is less effective at winning allies than making a solid economic and social case for denser developments. Oftentimes urbanists actually explicitly say they want to "ban surburbs", which does nothing to help their cause or suggest that they are looking for a compromise that involves both dense developments and less dense developments.
- milkytron 5y agoThis is why I like the points and objective of Strong Towns. It's mostly about fiscal responsibility and improved quality of life for all. I think those are some objectives we can all rally behind.