4 ms·
You're missing the point. We rebuilt the built environment based around internal combustion cars capabilities. Everything became single use zoning, so you need
by beedeebeedee 2y ago
You're missing the point. We rebuilt the built environment based around internal combustion cars capabilities. Everything became single use zoning, so you need to drive from your house to the store, school, work, etc. None of that needed to be done (and has had severe impacts on our society across the board). If we had been limited to early 1900s electric vehicles, we could have stayed with more traditional mixed use city planning. Folks could still use cars to go where they needed, but even more importantly, they could walk! And for longer distances, take a train. Not only would we have been better off pollution wise, we would have been better off physically, mentally, and morally (not had to support middle eastern authoritarians).
- SoftTalker 2y ago> Everything became single use zoning, so you need to drive from your house to the store, school, work, etc. None of that needed to be done But let's not pretend that it was forced upon us. Most people liked their single-family suburban home in quiet neighborhoods without a lot of businesses nearby with their crowds, traffic, and noise. Nobody was ever prevented from continuing to live in their inner-city apartments, they just mostly prefered not to, when they had the choice.
- beedeebeedee 2y agoYeah, you're absolutely right. I'm pretty quick to demonize suburbs (and cars), but there were a lot of attractive things about them (and still are). We've had more than 60 years to live with them and it is pretty clear now what their problems are. I'd like it if we could move beyond them and bring back mixed use zoning as the default. My preference would be villages instead of subdivisions (i.e., clusters of housing and places of work with higher densities than suburbs, leaving the countryside intact, more like Europe).