3 ms·

Cities have a limited amount of space, and a disproportionate amount of it is allocated to drivers. It's fine to choose to live in a car dependent suburbs; but

by sagarm 2y ago

Cities have a limited amount of space, and a disproportionate amount of it is allocated to drivers. It's fine to choose to live in a car dependent suburbs; but don't be surprised when urbanites want to prevent fast through traffic just like suburbanites do. They're not obligated to design their neighborhood for your convenience.

trgn 2y ago
This is my biggest gripe in the US. it's not the cars per se. it's that sub/ex-urbanites want to change the city to conform to their values. keep your car, i don't care, drive everywhere, but don't trash up the city just for your convenience. Let a thousand flowers bloom. cars for the fur trappers, but beautiful, calm pedestrian environments for the urbanites.
- tech_ken 2y ago
  > it's that sub/ex-urbanites want to change the city to conform to their values. keep your car, i don't care, drive everywhere, but don't trash up the city just for your convenience. Agree with the sentiment but IMO suburbs and car-centric cities are basically mutually defining. Suburbanites didn't change the city to suit their preferences, the city changing is what enables the existance of the suburbs. Suburbs can't sustain themselves alone, they lack the density and zoning to allow their citizens to productively work. The whole design concept is to give you place to live outside the city (away from the poor or minorities) while simultaneously making it as convenient as possible for you to commute into it with your personal vehicle. The end result is a system which generates wealth in a diverse urban area, and then exports much of it to the wealthy and exclusive suburbs. To make a city difficult to commute into by car breaks the whole system, since it deprives the outer suburbs of their revenue source; the people who live there (which typically includes the elite political class in charge of planning) will fight tooth and nail to prevent that.
  - trgn 2y ago
    thx, good way of summarizing it, and I think I understand this state of affairs the same way you do. > To make a city difficult to commute into by car breaks ... I think 90% of this is a mental fear. What we are really talking about in most US cities is just measures to overall calm car traffic; bike lanes, bump outs, some bollards, ... Small fiddly things which make city life meaningfully more agreeable for pedestrians, but the effect on drivers is all in all pretty marginal. Some slower top-speeds in the core, maybe parking a little further, ... It's incredibly frustrating to me that these small changes cannot even happen because suburbanites - at least, where I am - will not tolerate even the smallest material intervention. It's all gut feel. If miraculously one of these traffic calming measures does go through, it barely registers as a nuisance.

by sagarm 2y ago

trgn 2y ago

This is my biggest gripe in the US. it's not the cars per se. it's that sub/ex-urbanites want to change the city to conform to their values. keep your car, i don't care, drive everywhere, but don't trash up the city just for your convenience. Let a thousand flowers bloom. cars for the fur trappers, but beautiful, calm pedestrian environments for the urbanites.

tech_ken 2y ago
> it's that sub/ex-urbanites want to change the city to conform to their values. keep your car, i don't care, drive everywhere, but don't trash up the city just for your convenience. Agree with the sentiment but IMO suburbs and car-centric cities are basically mutually defining. Suburbanites didn't change the city to suit their preferences, the city changing is what enables the existance of the suburbs. Suburbs can't sustain themselves alone, they lack the density and zoning to allow their citizens to productively work. The whole design concept is to give you place to live outside the city (away from the poor or minorities) while simultaneously making it as convenient as possible for you to commute into it with your personal vehicle. The end result is a system which generates wealth in a diverse urban area, and then exports much of it to the wealthy and exclusive suburbs. To make a city difficult to commute into by car breaks the whole system, since it deprives the outer suburbs of their revenue source; the people who live there (which typically includes the elite political class in charge of planning) will fight tooth and nail to prevent that.
- trgn 2y ago
  thx, good way of summarizing it, and I think I understand this state of affairs the same way you do. > To make a city difficult to commute into by car breaks ... I think 90% of this is a mental fear. What we are really talking about in most US cities is just measures to overall calm car traffic; bike lanes, bump outs, some bollards, ... Small fiddly things which make city life meaningfully more agreeable for pedestrians, but the effect on drivers is all in all pretty marginal. Some slower top-speeds in the core, maybe parking a little further, ... It's incredibly frustrating to me that these small changes cannot even happen because suburbanites - at least, where I am - will not tolerate even the smallest material intervention. It's all gut feel. If miraculously one of these traffic calming measures does go through, it barely registers as a nuisance.