3 ms·

> That isn't physically possible, but it is what I want in the ideal world. I think the same can be said (to a lesser degree maybe) about cars, which are very

> That isn't physically possible, but it is what I want in the ideal world. I think the same can be said (to a lesser degree maybe) about cars, which are very space inefficient. With enough sprawl and a certain density, e.g. in Toronto, it's just gonna be traffic for every one.

bluGill 3y ago
Not exactly. Sprawl means you can't reasonably reach the entire city, but low density sprawl and cars mean you can reach enough of a city to consider it all the advantages of a city. Toronto loses out because they have a dense city center, downtowns have to be torn down for the sprawl model to work - people who get a new job may have to move elsewhere in the city since the new job isn't close to the old (unlike when all jobs were downtown) However since you are still "close" you can visit old friends and family on weekends - it will be a long drive but you don't make that trip often so it is reasonable. Cars don't enable many people to own 100 square miles - but I can get pretty close if I settle for 5 acres in an exurb. Many find that a single family house gives them close enough (they get a small garden - most likely grass they mow weekly - which is all they really want). But again it is a compromise. If we had science fiction technology (terraform Mars and Venus; teleporters) that 100 square miles might be reasonable.
- ackfoobar 3y ago
  I did not make my point clear, and that's my bad. Torotno exists, so of course car dependency is somewhat feasible in real life. The impossible part is travelling in the sprawl with relatively short time, as limited by the road's speed limit. The real limiting factor most of the time is traffic, because of the space inefficiency of cars. I made this point because I seem to recall a city simulation game despawn cars (literally physically impossible) to make car dependent designs "work". --- > you can reach enough of a city to consider it all the advantages of a city With enough people driving downtown you lose most of the advantages, and it makes the lives of those who didn't choose this lifestyle worse.

bluGill 3y ago

Not exactly. Sprawl means you can't reasonably reach the entire city, but low density sprawl and cars mean you can reach enough of a city to consider it all the advantages of a city. Toronto loses out because they have a dense city center, downtowns have to be torn down for the sprawl model to work - people who get a new job may have to move elsewhere in the city since the new job isn't close to the old (unlike when all jobs were downtown) However since you are still "close" you can visit old friends and family on weekends - it will be a long drive but you don't make that trip often so it is reasonable. Cars don't enable many people to own 100 square miles - but I can get pretty close if I settle for 5 acres in an exurb. Many find that a single family house gives them close enough (they get a small garden - most likely grass they mow weekly - which is all they really want). But again it is a compromise. If we had science fiction technology (terraform Mars and Venus; teleporters) that 100 square miles might be reasonable.

ackfoobar 3y ago
I did not make my point clear, and that's my bad. Torotno exists, so of course car dependency is somewhat feasible in real life. The impossible part is travelling in the sprawl with relatively short time, as limited by the road's speed limit. The real limiting factor most of the time is traffic, because of the space inefficiency of cars. I made this point because I seem to recall a city simulation game despawn cars (literally physically impossible) to make car dependent designs "work". --- > you can reach enough of a city to consider it all the advantages of a city With enough people driving downtown you lose most of the advantages, and it makes the lives of those who didn't choose this lifestyle worse.