5 ms·

While I generally like the idea of city centers, I think that this kind of anti-car stuff comes off like wild-eyed propaganda. For instance, the title suggests

While I generally like the idea of city centers, I think that this kind of anti-car stuff comes off like wild-eyed propaganda. For instance, the title suggests that the places were built for cars alone, kind of like the garage where Jay Leno keeps his collection. No. The suburbs were built for people driving cars. Not just cars. People getting rides in cars, avoiding weather, sitting comfortably, transporting the handicapped and the infirm and the older folks. Car haters need to remember that most people love cars because they work in all kinds of weather and transport them to work or health care or entertainment etc. As for the bit about human connection, that's kind of silly. Life is what you make of it. For every lonely suburbanite trapped in a house with a two-car garage, I can show you a lonely city dweller who doesn't even know the name of the people in the apartment down the hall. I've lived in NYC and that is VERY common. I don't really like driving myself. I prefer to walk, or when the weather is good, to ride a bicycle. But I can easily understand why others want to buy a car. They're very useful and the car haters who deny this come across as fools or shills.

dont__panic 4y ago
I don't think car haters deny that cars can be useful, particularly in the environment we've constructed here in the USA. Hell, I own (half of) a car, because I want to visit family and friends who live a couple of hours away, and there's no train or even bus that could bring me to them. > The suburbs were built for people driving cars. Not just cars. People getting rides in cars, avoiding weather, sitting comfortably, transporting the handicapped and the infirm and the older folks. No, they were built for cars. Giant 4-lane 45 MPH stroads with no sidewalks that "connect" neighborhoods for cars, but isolate anyone without a car... those are built for cars. Driveways are built for people to get to cars, and some cul-de-sacs are built for children to play (but not teenagers to do anything interesting outside the yard -- they might get in trouble). A lot of us just want SOMEPLACE in the USA where we can live without a car. NYC is the only place I can think of that accomplishes that, but with median rent hitting 3-4k/mo, that's out of reach for all but the highest earners. There are some cities and towns where you can occasionally do things outside of a car if you're willing to pay a premium and deal with poor infrastructure, but it all feels very fringe -- as if you're doing something you shouldn't. Remember that wanting places without cars does not mean we want to ban cars, or stop people from using them in rural areas, or blow up the suburbs, or anything that wild. We just want to de-emphasize cars in dense environments so we can walk around!
- xhkkffbf 4y ago
  No. You're missing my point. Those giant four lane roads were built for cars AND people moving together. The people are a big part of the equation. All of them are going some place. Some might be going to yoga. Some to church. Some to work. Some to the hospital. Etc. Yes, some might be doing something completely worthless and bad for society too, but, in general, people are the ones using the roads. The cars are only vehicles. There's a slow movement back to urban environments, in part, because people understand the tradeoffs. But it comes off as foolish to pretend that these suburbs and four lane roads were imposed by some distant, evil presence. No. They were created by city planners trained by the best universities. They were created by progressive folks who wanted to build a nice place for people to live. This is what people wanted-- and many still want it in some form or another.
  - dont__panic 4y ago
    We might be missing each other's points! In suburbs, those stroads are essential to get people from place to place. IMO that "essential" ends at the edge of a city -- at high density, cars selfishly dominate public spaces, and actually detract from that environment's utility. It's a scalability problem; single occupancy cars can only move so much meat. Walking + biking + transit can move a lot more meat in a dense space. I think a lot of people do want those suburban environments even today. I'm not sure many people want today's US city center environment that has been compromised by the car.
  - mlsu 4y ago
    You may want to look carefully at the motives of some of those 1950s and 1960s planners. The phrases "White Flight," "Redlining," "Blockbusting," "Steering" would be a good place to begin.
wszfahwbwbaha 4y ago
I think it's just the case where there is a handful of extremely vocal anti-car people. Mostly everyone else likes them and doesn't feel the need to defend them because it's the status-quo.
gnarcoregrizz 4y ago
"Transport of the handicap and infirm... ", Cars are not ideal for disabled people. As an epileptic, the driving restrictions are one of the worst parts of the disease. I feel like I'm in a prison. I can't drive to the store, I can't drive my kids to school, I can't drive to do anything recreational. I'm literally stuck at home and 100% dependent upon someone else to do absolutely anything. Even if someone is nice enough to drive me somewhere I feel so guilty for taking their time away. Biking here sucks too, the local roads are like freeways (60+mph). The bike "lanes" are a joke. Cars are a requirement. It's so goddamn stupid and it really, really, really sucks for people like me. Its hard for me to convey how infuriating it is. Cars are not ideal for the disabled and infirm. There are a non-negligible amount of people in a similar situation as me.

dont__panic 4y ago

I don't think car haters deny that cars can be useful, particularly in the environment we've constructed here in the USA. Hell, I own (half of) a car, because I want to visit family and friends who live a couple of hours away, and there's no train or even bus that could bring me to them. > The suburbs were built for people driving cars. Not just cars. People getting rides in cars, avoiding weather, sitting comfortably, transporting the handicapped and the infirm and the older folks. No, they were built for cars. Giant 4-lane 45 MPH stroads with no sidewalks that "connect" neighborhoods for cars, but isolate anyone without a car... those are built for cars. Driveways are built for people to get to cars, and some cul-de-sacs are built for children to play (but not teenagers to do anything interesting outside the yard -- they might get in trouble). A lot of us just want SOMEPLACE in the USA where we can live without a car. NYC is the only place I can think of that accomplishes that, but with median rent hitting 3-4k/mo, that's out of reach for all but the highest earners. There are some cities and towns where you can occasionally do things outside of a car if you're willing to pay a premium and deal with poor infrastructure, but it all feels very fringe -- as if you're doing something you shouldn't. Remember that wanting places without cars does not mean we want to ban cars, or stop people from using them in rural areas, or blow up the suburbs, or anything that wild. We just want to de-emphasize cars in dense environments so we can walk around!

xhkkffbf 4y ago
No. You're missing my point. Those giant four lane roads were built for cars AND people moving together. The people are a big part of the equation. All of them are going some place. Some might be going to yoga. Some to church. Some to work. Some to the hospital. Etc. Yes, some might be doing something completely worthless and bad for society too, but, in general, people are the ones using the roads. The cars are only vehicles. There's a slow movement back to urban environments, in part, because people understand the tradeoffs. But it comes off as foolish to pretend that these suburbs and four lane roads were imposed by some distant, evil presence. No. They were created by city planners trained by the best universities. They were created by progressive folks who wanted to build a nice place for people to live. This is what people wanted-- and many still want it in some form or another.
- dont__panic 4y ago
  We might be missing each other's points! In suburbs, those stroads are essential to get people from place to place. IMO that "essential" ends at the edge of a city -- at high density, cars selfishly dominate public spaces, and actually detract from that environment's utility. It's a scalability problem; single occupancy cars can only move so much meat. Walking + biking + transit can move a lot more meat in a dense space. I think a lot of people do want those suburban environments even today. I'm not sure many people want today's US city center environment that has been compromised by the car.
- mlsu 4y ago
  You may want to look carefully at the motives of some of those 1950s and 1960s planners. The phrases "White Flight," "Redlining," "Blockbusting," "Steering" would be a good place to begin.

wszfahwbwbaha 4y ago

I think it's just the case where there is a handful of extremely vocal anti-car people. Mostly everyone else likes them and doesn't feel the need to defend them because it's the status-quo.

gnarcoregrizz 4y ago

"Transport of the handicap and infirm... ", Cars are not ideal for disabled people. As an epileptic, the driving restrictions are one of the worst parts of the disease. I feel like I'm in a prison. I can't drive to the store, I can't drive my kids to school, I can't drive to do anything recreational. I'm literally stuck at home and 100% dependent upon someone else to do absolutely anything. Even if someone is nice enough to drive me somewhere I feel so guilty for taking their time away. Biking here sucks too, the local roads are like freeways (60+mph). The bike "lanes" are a joke. Cars are a requirement. It's so goddamn stupid and it really, really, really sucks for people like me. Its hard for me to convey how infuriating it is. Cars are not ideal for the disabled and infirm. There are a non-negligible amount of people in a similar situation as me.