4 ms·

> It’s kind of weird, because if you live in a place where you really don’t Need one, it becomes pretty quickly apparent what a trap that sense of empowerment a

> It’s kind of weird, because if you live in a place where you really don’t Need one, it becomes pretty quickly apparent what a trap that sense of empowerment actually is. While I agree everyone having a car in a concentrated city is bad; I’ve lived in the Chicago suburbs and public transport is impractical. Cars on the other hand make loads of sense. I think this occurs rather naturally. Car parking in the city is VERY expensive, so fewer have cars. It’s also dense, so there is less need. Similarly, where it’s cheaper to house a car, it’s more needed. Personally, I hate living in the city. I am WAY more empowered, have more wealth and have a healthier life outside the city. I can visit any time with my car, but avoid the pollution and squaller

namuol 4y ago
> I think this occurs rather naturally. It’s not exactly natural. It was in no small part by design. The auto industry worked very hard to shut down public transit and lobby for as much public funding for roads as possible. This further induced demand for suburbs, which, once established, completely cemented the need for car infrastructure (let alone plumbing, electricity, public safety, etc). Decades later, these sprawling municipalities find themselves desperate for funds to maintain this expensive infrastructure, and push for ever more sprawl to (temporarily) relieve the present financial strain incurred from the last wave of sprawl that’s come due for maintenance… Rinse, repeat, and it’s not surprising why so many American cities go bankrupt and so many suburbs have decayed. There’s a lot more at play when it comes to the decay of American cities for sure, but the incredible influence of cars is kind of the 10 ton gorilla in the room. I’m not saying it’s something that can be fixed overnight or anything, but I think we have to start by admitting it’s not really working. Maybe it works well for you like it does for so many other Americans. But I really don’t think most of us have the experience of what it could be like had history gone another way.
- lettergram 4y ago
  I think the system is far too complex to claim “it’s cars” because it costs more to run infrastructure. Infrastructure is often not even the #1 expense for sprawling suburban cities. The Police-per-person-ratio is less, pension funds are usually extremely high on the list of expenses. Similarly, education can also be exceedingly high on the list of expenses, depending on jurisdiction. I’m not saying you’re completely off base, but I think it’s far more nuanced.
  - namuol 4y ago
    Yeah I agree (hence “There’s a lot more at play when it comes to the decay of American cities for sure”), but so many things are inextricably linked to the inefficiencies inherent in the shape of cities that are only possible with high car ownership.

namuol 4y ago

> I think this occurs rather naturally. It’s not exactly natural. It was in no small part by design. The auto industry worked very hard to shut down public transit and lobby for as much public funding for roads as possible. This further induced demand for suburbs, which, once established, completely cemented the need for car infrastructure (let alone plumbing, electricity, public safety, etc). Decades later, these sprawling municipalities find themselves desperate for funds to maintain this expensive infrastructure, and push for ever more sprawl to (temporarily) relieve the present financial strain incurred from the last wave of sprawl that’s come due for maintenance… Rinse, repeat, and it’s not surprising why so many American cities go bankrupt and so many suburbs have decayed. There’s a lot more at play when it comes to the decay of American cities for sure, but the incredible influence of cars is kind of the 10 ton gorilla in the room. I’m not saying it’s something that can be fixed overnight or anything, but I think we have to start by admitting it’s not really working. Maybe it works well for you like it does for so many other Americans. But I really don’t think most of us have the experience of what it could be like had history gone another way.

lettergram 4y ago
I think the system is far too complex to claim “it’s cars” because it costs more to run infrastructure. Infrastructure is often not even the #1 expense for sprawling suburban cities. The Police-per-person-ratio is less, pension funds are usually extremely high on the list of expenses. Similarly, education can also be exceedingly high on the list of expenses, depending on jurisdiction. I’m not saying you’re completely off base, but I think it’s far more nuanced.
- namuol 4y ago
  Yeah I agree (hence “There’s a lot more at play when it comes to the decay of American cities for sure”), but so many things are inextricably linked to the inefficiencies inherent in the shape of cities that are only possible with high car ownership.