2 ms·
> When the zone is nice and convenient, one rarely cares about the sticks. Trade my fundamental freedoms for the "convenience" of using services within my 15 m
by cbeach 3y ago
> When the zone is nice and convenient, one rarely cares about the sticks.
Trade my fundamental freedoms for the "convenience" of using services within my 15 minute zone, rather than the services I prefer to use, which may be outside the zone?
Or will all services be forced to be equally mediocre, so people have no desire to seek services outside their zone?
- maxglute 3y agoIMO fundmental freedom is being able to walk (for free) to get your daily essentials met, instead of requiring transportation that eats up 15% of household income. Nevermind people who can't afford car upkeep. Personal vehicles are more of a cowboy/frontier privilege, which is still important, but doesn't mean settlements/cities need to adapt to car usage patterns to the detriment of pedestrian patterns. Transit linking multiple zones together enables shopping around for quality services. Car owners can still drive. Again this isn't about eliminating cars, but reducing reliance on them, especially for every day living. Yes it can be about settling for whatever is in your default zone, which frequently is enough on the convenience : cost ratio if there's enough density to attract commerce at scale. 15 minute development patterns does not prevent car ownership. Car centric development in NA have inhibitted walkability, while also getting indirectly subsidized by non car owners.
- ProfessorLayton 3y agoFunny you mention fundamental freedoms, when suburbia as we know it today is the consequence of severe government restrictions on everything from lot size and building height to parking.