4 ms·

Consider why the pavement is only 4ft wide.

by substation13 4y ago

tomcam 4y ago
Because London is a 2000 year old city?
- kitten_mittens_ 4y ago
  Walking on a roads was a thing (and still is in some places). Tokyo, for example.
  - 13of40 4y ago
    The place I'm in right now is supposedly a modern development but the sidewalks are in such disrepair / built over / covered in debris that everyone just walks in the road with the traffic.
- dijit 4y ago
  It’s been rebuilt many times since then, even discounting the bombing of World War Two which destroyed roughly 2 million homes (of approx 5 million at the time in London). The great fire of London literally reduced the city by so much that practically the entire city was rebuilt; that was only 350y ago (not making the case that you’re wrong about it being old, but 2,000 years is unfortunately wrong) Anyway, urban design is not set in stone. It’s interesting to look at the evolution of Los Angeles as an example of a city that already exists being radically changed, entire blocks of buildings were demolished to make downtown roads so wide.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    > It’s interesting to look at the evolution of Los Angeles as an example of a city that already exists being radically changed, entire blocks of buildings were demolished to make downtown roads so wide I'm not sure giving LA, one of the poster cities for how not to do urban design, as an example, is a great idea. Paris did the same thing, only in a much more measured fashion, in the 1760s under Haussmann and Napoléon III. However destroying parts of a city which is thousands of years old just to increase the size of sidewalks would be to destroy historical monuments for minimal gains. If anything, making most small streets pedestrian and bike only sounds smarter.
    - dijit 4y ago
      Wasn’t making the point that it was good but saying that urban design is locked in to “history” is the most common argument against good cycling infrastructure. (and i was trying to correct the notion that the city of london has not had radical changes in its urban design for 2000 years)
      - substation13 4y ago
        And funnily Paris is re-configuring the city for active travel right now!
- mrcartmeneses 4y ago
  It’s the huge amount of space given to cars. Or did those exists 2000 years ago also?
easytiger 4y ago
Some of the roads where i live are over 2000 years old. Was it because society used vehicles to build their civilisation and to move goods and provide services at lower latency? If scooter users stayed on roads i wouldn't have a problem. But the technology lends itself to abuse by people with no knowledge of safe road use.

Consider why the pavement is only 4ft wide.

tomcam 4y ago

Because London is a 2000 year old city?

kitten_mittens_ 4y ago
Walking on a roads was a thing (and still is in some places). Tokyo, for example.
- 13of40 4y ago
  The place I'm in right now is supposedly a modern development but the sidewalks are in such disrepair / built over / covered in debris that everyone just walks in the road with the traffic.
dijit 4y ago
It’s been rebuilt many times since then, even discounting the bombing of World War Two which destroyed roughly 2 million homes (of approx 5 million at the time in London). The great fire of London literally reduced the city by so much that practically the entire city was rebuilt; that was only 350y ago (not making the case that you’re wrong about it being old, but 2,000 years is unfortunately wrong) Anyway, urban design is not set in stone. It’s interesting to look at the evolution of Los Angeles as an example of a city that already exists being radically changed, entire blocks of buildings were demolished to make downtown roads so wide.
- sofixa 4y ago
  > It’s interesting to look at the evolution of Los Angeles as an example of a city that already exists being radically changed, entire blocks of buildings were demolished to make downtown roads so wide I'm not sure giving LA, one of the poster cities for how not to do urban design, as an example, is a great idea. Paris did the same thing, only in a much more measured fashion, in the 1760s under Haussmann and Napoléon III. However destroying parts of a city which is thousands of years old just to increase the size of sidewalks would be to destroy historical monuments for minimal gains. If anything, making most small streets pedestrian and bike only sounds smarter.
  - dijit 4y ago
    Wasn’t making the point that it was good but saying that urban design is locked in to “history” is the most common argument against good cycling infrastructure. (and i was trying to correct the notion that the city of london has not had radical changes in its urban design for 2000 years)
    - substation13 4y ago
      And funnily Paris is re-configuring the city for active travel right now!
mrcartmeneses 4y ago
It’s the huge amount of space given to cars. Or did those exists 2000 years ago also?

easytiger 4y ago

Some of the roads where i live are over 2000 years old. Was it because society used vehicles to build their civilisation and to move goods and provide services at lower latency? If scooter users stayed on roads i wouldn't have a problem. But the technology lends itself to abuse by people with no knowledge of safe road use.