3 ms·
I don’t think anyone serious expects existing suburbs to be torn down in a generation, the argument that car-free folks make is that we should stop forcing new
by paulgb 3y ago
I don’t think anyone serious expects existing suburbs to be torn down in a generation, the argument that car-free folks make is that we should stop forcing new growth to sprawl outside cities by:
1. Not limiting density in cities through red tape (parking requirements, multi-year review processes, etc.)
2. Not forcing urbanites to subsidize suburbanite’s lifestyles, which are more expensive[1]
The train argument I typically see is that it should be cheaper to take the train between city pairs in the northeast (NYC-Boston, NYC-DC) than it is to fly, which it currently often is not.
There are also a lot of ways the status quo is subtly baked into the system. e.g. employers can offer employees pre-tax money to pay for parking to commute, but if they ride a bikeshare to work and the employer pays for it, it’s a taxable benefit.
1: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/14/americas-growth-ponzi-scheme-md2020?format=amp https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/5/14/americas-growt...
- api 3y agoI agree with most of this. Maybe the problem is with how people write about the issue coupled with the modern social media driven need to edgelord it. I often see this stuff in the form of “fuck cars” type opinions that sound clueless and one sided. Of course the pro-car counter also ends up sounding clueless and one sided. I’ve spent much of my life in dense cities and currently live in suburb (with an EV). There are things I like and dislike about both settings, and I don’t really want either to disappear. In the US we could definitely use more walkable towns and I totally support zoning reform. I also think some suburbs could be retrofitted into walkable town designs over time and I’d be down with this.