3 ms·
This isn't really true outside of some very tarmaccy American cities. I live in London, UK. I can use my car to get to places, it just costs more, through cong
by throwaway22032 2y ago
This isn't really true outside of some very tarmaccy American cities.
I live in London, UK. I can use my car to get to places, it just costs more, through congestion charges, parking, and time.
The car hugely, hugely increases my exploration radius vs. walking and public transport.
There is also a value in things being bigger. I remember going to a random grungy arcade bar in LA that had fifty pinball machines. We don't have the space for that, at least, not unless it's an Experience(tm) with a corporate backer .
- kettlecorn 2y agoThose very "tarmaccy" US cities are what you get when you "stretch" cities to accommodate the scale of cars. Other US cities are gradually moving towards that design by adding incrementally more parking and highways, but it's a slow process. I have no opposition to cars, but designing cities where nearly all trips require a car is an extreme that most people in the US live in. If you own a car you use here and there that's absolutely fine, but if there's nowhere for someone to live where they can comfortably get by without a car that's a bad place to be. And as I argued in my initial point when everyone needs to drive the congestion and distance between things substantially reduces the advantage of driving in the first place.