4 ms·
Urbanists don’t hate the suburbs because they look same-ish and have chain restaurants. Urbanists hate them because they are designed for cars instead of peopl
by dangus 3y ago
Urbanists don’t hate the suburbs because they look same-ish and have chain restaurants.
Urbanists hate them because they are designed for cars instead of people, and are actively hostile to simply existing in the outside natural world.
Try this experiment: go to your local big box plaza or McDonald’s. Get out of your car and stand on the sidewalk on the four+ lane stroad. How does it sound? How does it feel to be there? What’s it like to cross the street at the crosswalk? Do you feel comfortable and safe?
But really, it feels terrible, doesn’t it? Like being inside a noisy wind tunnel. But there are these designed places where city planners are telling you that you should technically be able to walk there (sidewalks and crosswalks and signals), even though you know that nobody in their right mind would want to spend a spare moment there. You can’t actually be a happy person in that place unless you stay inside your car, completely removed from the real world, and these spaces take up the majority of the American suburb.
But that specific experience isn’t universal to all suburbs, it just happens to be common in North America. Urbanists hate the suburbs that disconnect the pedestrian environment even in cases where on a Birds Eye view you can see that some of the shopping and schools are so close to the residents. There are endless cases of easy 1/4 mile walks turned into a twisted loop of 1.5 mile long excursions just to follow the car infrastructure to the nearest safe crossings and access roads.
The automobile is America’s largest wealth destroyer that takes car payments averaging something like $500-700 a month and sends them to rapidly depreciating assets that fund a handful of corporations in the automotive industry. Meanwhile, these cars are fueled by oil we have scientifically proven to already use too much of.
There are numerous videos from urbanism channels like Not Just Bikes proving that car-light or car-free suburban living or even rural living is possible and exists successfully in places outside of North America. There are farming towns in places like the Netherlands and Japan where getting around via bicycle, train, and bus is completely viable.
Considering the electrification of bicycles and other similar light vehicles, getting around via non-automobile should be better than ever. No more excuses about being sweaty before work, the only barrier now is that there’s no bicycle infrastructure, no safe place to actually ride your e-bike between destinations.
Cars have only existed for a tiny fraction of human history. Far-flung villages and cities have existed for millennia. The bicycle can move a human faster, more reliably, and cheaper than a horse ever could. Trains are far more energy efficient, pleasant, accessible to people with disabilities, and safe than automobiles, and North America had loads of them before they ever had automobiles. The majority of towns and small cities in the US had something to do with the railroads or canals and waterways, nothing at all to do with personal vehicles or owning a 7,000 pound lifted truck.
The American suburb’s design is a purposeful choice, not a development model that is an inevitability nor does it have to be a model that we stick with forever. We don’t have to build a single new development this way if we choose not to.
Here’s a delightful fun fact: if the global car death count occurred in aviation, it would be equivalent of 20 commercial planes crashing and killing all occupants every single day.
- 2devnull 3y agoHow do you feel about mopeds? You obviously hate cars, and seem to like bikes. Where is the equilibrium for you? Are pedal driven mopeds tolerable? Vespas? Sincere curiosity.
- ToucanLoucan 3y agoIt's impossible for me to disconnect articles like this from the concepts of white flight and the practices of redlining. The city is now where "those people" are, and the suburbs are where "we" are. The cities are scary, the suburbs are safe. Really have to hand it to the last several decades of marketing on the grounds of managing to shape incredibly profitable societal attitude shifts.
- raul-pilla 3y agoDemographics drive everything we do; no one wants to be close to crime, you don't need a marketing for that: it advertises itself.
- ToucanLoucan 3y agoSure but that presumes that where and how bad the crime is is an understood fact and people make decisions accordingly, when the evidence says the opposite. Over-policing in predominantly minority areas cases more crimes to be reported as occurring, even when the actual crime rates are more or less equal between those areas and predominantly white areas, simply because more police and police resources are allocated to those areas, and therefore, more crime is discovered and prosecuted. This becomes a death spiral for neighborhoods: more police presence equals higher crime statistics which in turn are used to justify increasing police budgets and police presence in those same areas, and, worst of all, those areas never actually become safer for the people who live there, often the exact opposite.
- raul-pilla 3y agoAre you aware of the concept of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-trust_and_low-trust_societies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-trust_and_low-trust_socie...? As I said, people and business flock to areas where they are welcomed and the limiting factor is money.