3 ms·
> The damage is so deep that it feels irreversible at this point, like the US will be doomed to cars and traffic forever. There's lots of energy to change thin
by kibwen 3y ago
> The damage is so deep that it feels irreversible at this point, like the US will be doomed to cars and traffic forever.
There's lots of energy to change things, but you need to find the right city. It will still take 50 years to even approach the level of Amsterdam, but here in Boston I live car-free and the bike infrastructure is getting better every year. Right now the problem is density: solving the car problem ultimately means building dense housing.
- nurple 3y agoOr perhaps it means building less-dense light commercial? I'm not a big fan of the perspective that our only solution to the current housing issues are to package humans in quarters whose main selling point over chicken coops is that your feces don't fall on the heads of your downstairs neighbors.
- wtp1saac 3y agothe idea that there is either the zero-density of single family homes, versus giant apartments that are skyscrapers with thin ceilings and walls, is a false choice due to the US’s bad urban planning. there are a lot of density options between everywhere USA and Manhattan - row homes for example - that would give a pleasant middle ground and still massively improve density and walkability
- kibwen 3y agoThis is needlessly hyperbolic. You don't need to cram humans into a SimCity arcology to achieve sustainable levels of density. Hell, you don't even need skyscrapers, which are foolishly inefficient in any case. 3- to 6-story mixed-use development is all it takes (when I say "build housing" I'm only referring to the most pressing crisis, not suggesting that housing should be zoned separately).