4 ms·

"car free city" is a bit of an oxymoron. How do ambulances and fire engines access buildings to administer emergency services? How do deliveries to stores work?

"car free city" is a bit of an oxymoron. How do ambulances and fire engines access buildings to administer emergency services? How do deliveries to stores work? No city can actually function without automobiles. The reality is that there's sections of the city that are pedestrian only. I lived in Barcelona for two years, and that's how it worked. There are some pedestrian roads that have benches and storefronts, but there's automobile traffic one street over. The article describes the superblock system: basically the interior of the block is pedestrian only, but the larger exterior streets have car traffic. No one is more than a block away from car traffic at any time.

carapace 4y ago
> No city can actually function without automobiles. C'mon, cities predate cars by thousands of years.
- x86x87 4y ago
  Just because something is possible at a certain scale or used to be done in a specific way does not mean it's a good idead. A city with 1000 people is a conmpletely differeny proposition than a city with 100k people.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Right, and those cities were miniscule by today's standards, and their municipal services were terrible. How many times did London burn down before the 20th century? How effective was medieval London's emergency medical services?
  - JCharante 4y ago
    > those cities were miniscule by today's standards Rome had a million people in it 100 BC. There were still large cities. Also most large cities today (Tokyo, Shanghai, London, Paris, New York) have strong public transport systems and most people don't need cars. So you can have large cities where most people live a car-free lifestyle. > How many times did London burn down before the 20th century? I think fire codes being enforced & developments in building techniques helped reduced fires, not just that we can drive fire trucks to situations.
    - pkphilip 4y ago
      They had horse carts then. People weren't cycling to get around. A car is simply a horse cart without the cart and occupies about the same amount of space
- Nomentatus 4y ago
  On the one hand, by the principle of charity, what was meant was that modern cities can't function without automobiles, not that ancient Sumeria required automobiles. Straw man. On the other hand, by the principle of charity, what's being argued is that modern cities can't dump all automobiles immediately; not the idea that modern technology is too feeble to allow a city design without automobiles to function at all. Straw woman. On the third hand, by the principle of charity, what is being argued is that most automobiles can be dropped from large parts of modern cities with more gain than loss; not that entire metropolitan and suburban areas can drop cars without inconvenience. Straw pronoun of your choice. In other words, none of the arguments here are what they appear to be about superficially. They're really about degree of difficulty - is that underestimated or over-estimated? vs the benefits: more or less than you'd think. To argue that, you need details, which are in short supply until the experiments get not just to your city but to your block. It's in good part an argument about network effects - and we aren't used to taking those into account properly. Where I live, the standard argument as bike lanes/routes were being (expensively!) built downtown was: "Nobody even uses them!" Which was true as long as the bike routes were all less than a couple kilometers long. Now bike traffic is picking up as routes lengthen and multiply; so I rarely if ever hear that argument. Now what I hear is "you still need a car" because few bike routes are very long as yet, rather than objections to bike lanes in the middle of streets (or displacing streets) existing at all. Soon it will be "where I live you still need a car." Finally, when the lanes are built out, which they will be, the argument will be "I just like the convenience of a car." My own view now: "I didn't expect this, but I really like that my neighborhood is quieter; which it is because there's now a pocket park right where an intersection used to be, one block from me. Just that change has made a remarkable difference. Damned nice to sit there in relative silence. Watching bikes hum by from time to time."
MrDresden 4y ago
Clearly you did not read the article, as it revolves around the ways many cities have reduced car traffic by offering alternatives. Cars will not be removed, but they should not be the primary transportation mechanism by which we design our cities going forward.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  My point exactly: the term "car free city" is click bait. "Car free cities" are not even remotely car free, I'm glad you agree. Also how do you conclude that I didn't read the article when I refer to Barcelona's super block system, and reference it's mention in the article? Do a better job reading comments.
  - JCharante 4y ago
    Well if that's your standard then "serverless" isn't really "server less" but we still call it that.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      Severless refers to the fact that someone else is provisioning the server. By that standard, my friend that never uses public transit or bicycles, and Ubers everywhere is "car-free".
    - blep_ 4y ago
      In fairness, a lot of us have been grumbling about that word since it caught on.
  - throwbadubadu 4y ago
    No not your point.. that point was already made in the article, noone is saying here (and no reasonable person would think?!?) that car-free means 100% car free, you are overly nit picking at a term for unknown reason.
tshaddox 4y ago
I saw a horse at a fancy wedding once too, but it’s still fair to call most cities “horse-free” in this context.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Even in "car-free" cities you'll see cars every other block, at least. It's nowhere near comparable to calling cities "horse-free".
tinyspacewizard 4y ago
How it works in Amsterdam, for example, is that you can still drive most places, however: 1. The motor vehicle route is extremely indirect, so walking is typically quicker 2. There is no free parking 3. Store loading happens only at certain times 4. There are shortcuts that emergency services can unlock with special keys
- throwthroyaboat 4y ago
  As an addendum to 4., I believe emergency service vehicles are also allowed to use the tram tracks.
Ekaros 4y ago
And for some reason they are not banning taxis or "ridesharing". Just the poor have to suffer.

carapace 4y ago

> No city can actually function without automobiles. C'mon, cities predate cars by thousands of years.

x86x87 4y ago
Just because something is possible at a certain scale or used to be done in a specific way does not mean it's a good idead. A city with 1000 people is a conmpletely differeny proposition than a city with 100k people.
Manuel_D 4y ago
Right, and those cities were miniscule by today's standards, and their municipal services were terrible. How many times did London burn down before the 20th century? How effective was medieval London's emergency medical services?
- JCharante 4y ago
  > those cities were miniscule by today's standards Rome had a million people in it 100 BC. There were still large cities. Also most large cities today (Tokyo, Shanghai, London, Paris, New York) have strong public transport systems and most people don't need cars. So you can have large cities where most people live a car-free lifestyle. > How many times did London burn down before the 20th century? I think fire codes being enforced & developments in building techniques helped reduced fires, not just that we can drive fire trucks to situations.
  - pkphilip 4y ago
    They had horse carts then. People weren't cycling to get around. A car is simply a horse cart without the cart and occupies about the same amount of space
Nomentatus 4y ago
On the one hand, by the principle of charity, what was meant was that modern cities can't function without automobiles, not that ancient Sumeria required automobiles. Straw man. On the other hand, by the principle of charity, what's being argued is that modern cities can't dump all automobiles immediately; not the idea that modern technology is too feeble to allow a city design without automobiles to function at all. Straw woman. On the third hand, by the principle of charity, what is being argued is that most automobiles can be dropped from large parts of modern cities with more gain than loss; not that entire metropolitan and suburban areas can drop cars without inconvenience. Straw pronoun of your choice. In other words, none of the arguments here are what they appear to be about superficially. They're really about degree of difficulty - is that underestimated or over-estimated? vs the benefits: more or less than you'd think. To argue that, you need details, which are in short supply until the experiments get not just to your city but to your block. It's in good part an argument about network effects - and we aren't used to taking those into account properly. Where I live, the standard argument as bike lanes/routes were being (expensively!) built downtown was: "Nobody even uses them!" Which was true as long as the bike routes were all less than a couple kilometers long. Now bike traffic is picking up as routes lengthen and multiply; so I rarely if ever hear that argument. Now what I hear is "you still need a car" because few bike routes are very long as yet, rather than objections to bike lanes in the middle of streets (or displacing streets) existing at all. Soon it will be "where I live you still need a car." Finally, when the lanes are built out, which they will be, the argument will be "I just like the convenience of a car." My own view now: "I didn't expect this, but I really like that my neighborhood is quieter; which it is because there's now a pocket park right where an intersection used to be, one block from me. Just that change has made a remarkable difference. Damned nice to sit there in relative silence. Watching bikes hum by from time to time."

MrDresden 4y ago

Clearly you did not read the article, as it revolves around the ways many cities have reduced car traffic by offering alternatives. Cars will not be removed, but they should not be the primary transportation mechanism by which we design our cities going forward.

Manuel_D 4y ago
My point exactly: the term "car free city" is click bait. "Car free cities" are not even remotely car free, I'm glad you agree. Also how do you conclude that I didn't read the article when I refer to Barcelona's super block system, and reference it's mention in the article? Do a better job reading comments.
- JCharante 4y ago
  Well if that's your standard then "serverless" isn't really "server less" but we still call it that.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Severless refers to the fact that someone else is provisioning the server. By that standard, my friend that never uses public transit or bicycles, and Ubers everywhere is "car-free".
  - blep_ 4y ago
    In fairness, a lot of us have been grumbling about that word since it caught on.
- throwbadubadu 4y ago
  No not your point.. that point was already made in the article, noone is saying here (and no reasonable person would think?!?) that car-free means 100% car free, you are overly nit picking at a term for unknown reason.

tshaddox 4y ago

I saw a horse at a fancy wedding once too, but it’s still fair to call most cities “horse-free” in this context.

Manuel_D 4y ago
Even in "car-free" cities you'll see cars every other block, at least. It's nowhere near comparable to calling cities "horse-free".

tinyspacewizard 4y ago

How it works in Amsterdam, for example, is that you can still drive most places, however: 1. The motor vehicle route is extremely indirect, so walking is typically quicker 2. There is no free parking 3. Store loading happens only at certain times 4. There are shortcuts that emergency services can unlock with special keys

throwthroyaboat 4y ago
As an addendum to 4., I believe emergency service vehicles are also allowed to use the tram tracks.

Ekaros 4y ago

And for some reason they are not banning taxis or "ridesharing". Just the poor have to suffer.