3 ms·

> These (American) articles on urbanism and what not always make it seems much more insane than it is. Wholeheartedly agree, and what is also funny that usuall

by pxtail 3y ago

> These (American) articles on urbanism and what not always make it seems much more insane than it is. Wholeheartedly agree, and what is also funny that usually it is described from POV of citizen living in: tier one city center with mild weather whole year round and relatively flat topography/terrain - and at the same time it's written in a way that suggest that it's THE SOLUTION absolutely applicable everywhere else.

piva00 3y ago
The solution applicable almost everywhere with some dozens of thousands of population is multimodal. Public transportation supported by infrastructure for cycling and cars relegated to their place in a multimodal system: inconvenient for shorter/regular trips, accessible for when it's needed. Stockholm doesn't have mild weather all year long, it's not flat, and still people will use public transportation or a bike. Oslo is definitely not flat, definitely not mild year round and even there people take public transportation, bike, etc.
- pxtail 3y ago
  And again, as examples you provide two capital cities of two richest countries in the world - capital cities are rich, can easily afford building public infra and also population density is big enough to make public transportation almost profitable - but not everybody lives in a capital city. https://lovetransit.substack.com/p/most-profitable-public-transportation https://lovetransit.substack.com/p/most-profitable-public-tr...
  - piva00 3y ago
    Those are just examples of two cities I'm closely familiar. People also bike everywhere in China, many Chinese cities have decent public transportation (much better than almost any non-big city in the USA). Small cities in the Netherlands are able to afford bus lines, and provide infrastructure for bikes which are much cheaper than roads for autos. Good public transportation is a net contributor to a city, it provides residents with ways to be more economically active without costing them much. You don't need underground metro, not even trams in most cases, a simple and reliable bus transit system can provide a lot if it's not delayed by traffic. You don't need to be rich to have decent and reliable public transportation, Southeast Asia has quite good examples of that.
  - adrianN 3y ago
    Berlin is quite poor and it still has decent public transport and good walkability. Public transport is far from profitable in Berlin. It's entirely possible to raise a family without a having a car in Berlin.
axpy 3y ago
I think you are missing the point. Yes I am currently living in Europe and yes almost every family own a car.The difference is when, how frequently its used and also the fact that you have alternatives. These article are idealiziling a car-free lifestyle that is definitely not quite ubiquitous but it does exists. Also, your idealized weather and topo do exists in the US, think California (and I would argue the entire west coast) but the infra, urbanism and often the laws do not allowe safe alternatives to cars and this is the core of the problem. Your comment make it like the whole EU has Mediterranean climate or is flat as Amsterdam, which cannot be further from the reality.

by pxtail 3y ago

piva00 3y ago

The solution applicable almost everywhere with some dozens of thousands of population is multimodal. Public transportation supported by infrastructure for cycling and cars relegated to their place in a multimodal system: inconvenient for shorter/regular trips, accessible for when it's needed. Stockholm doesn't have mild weather all year long, it's not flat, and still people will use public transportation or a bike. Oslo is definitely not flat, definitely not mild year round and even there people take public transportation, bike, etc.

pxtail 3y ago
And again, as examples you provide two capital cities of two richest countries in the world - capital cities are rich, can easily afford building public infra and also population density is big enough to make public transportation almost profitable - but not everybody lives in a capital city. https://lovetransit.substack.com/p/most-profitable-public-transportation https://lovetransit.substack.com/p/most-profitable-public-tr...
- piva00 3y ago
  Those are just examples of two cities I'm closely familiar. People also bike everywhere in China, many Chinese cities have decent public transportation (much better than almost any non-big city in the USA). Small cities in the Netherlands are able to afford bus lines, and provide infrastructure for bikes which are much cheaper than roads for autos. Good public transportation is a net contributor to a city, it provides residents with ways to be more economically active without costing them much. You don't need underground metro, not even trams in most cases, a simple and reliable bus transit system can provide a lot if it's not delayed by traffic. You don't need to be rich to have decent and reliable public transportation, Southeast Asia has quite good examples of that.
- adrianN 3y ago
  Berlin is quite poor and it still has decent public transport and good walkability. Public transport is far from profitable in Berlin. It's entirely possible to raise a family without a having a car in Berlin.

axpy 3y ago

I think you are missing the point. Yes I am currently living in Europe and yes almost every family own a car.The difference is when, how frequently its used and also the fact that you have alternatives. These article are idealiziling a car-free lifestyle that is definitely not quite ubiquitous but it does exists. Also, your idealized weather and topo do exists in the US, think California (and I would argue the entire west coast) but the infra, urbanism and often the laws do not allowe safe alternatives to cars and this is the core of the problem. Your comment make it like the whole EU has Mediterranean climate or is flat as Amsterdam, which cannot be further from the reality.