4 ms·

Want to Build a Perfect 21st Century Town? Ban Cars

51 points by pseudolus 2y ago

mikestew 2y ago
Was this an edited title, or some A/B testing? Because the title I see is Can Car-free Living Make You Happier?, and what is described in the article is hardly a town, but more like an oversized apartment complex.
- pseudolus 2y ago
  The title, as submitted, appears under the "Long Reads" menu on the website: https://www.outsideonline.com/tag/outside-features/ https://www.outsideonline.com/tag/outside-features/
- gedy 2y ago
  Yeah this place again. I mean kudos on trying something new, but it's basically condos/apartments with no parking, and surrounded by rest of Tempe, AZ. It's puffing this up to be something it's not.
dyauspitr 2y ago
I haven’t read the article but a town without cars implies that I’ll have to live in close proximity to a lot of people. Which means it’s apartment and condo living or living with no significant backyards. Both of these would be immediate dealbreakers for me.
- epolanski 2y ago
  If you don't want to live near people, maybe you don't want to live in a town. But for people that live in towns, they shouldn't live in environments built for cars rather than people. I'm European and lived in Columbus, Ohio for a period and traveled the US a bit and I just can't understand how can people do not recognize those cities are barely livable, walkable let alone enjoyable. At the end of the day it's a matter of trade offs and I have nothing against people willing to live in car oriented cities, I'm just surprised that it's like that literally everywhere bar some downtowns I've seen like Boston (but my memory may fail me), there should be more variety of city planning, rather than isolated buildings with countless parkings everywhere. Also, cars are really bad for health, even if they are not gas powered tires create tons of dust. If you've lived in a city and a country you know the difference in dirt in them, and it's largely car dependent.
  - josephcsible 2y ago
    > If you don't want to live near people, maybe you don't want to live in a town. You're right. The problem is all of the people saying things to the effect of "we need to ban low-density single-family housing to save the environment" who want to keep us from living how we want.
    - Turskarama 2y ago
      I guess the question is do we think twice as many tornadoes a year and billions of dollars in coastal property lost is a fair trade off for a small percentage of people getting to live in the sticks. Seems easy if you're not the one paying for the cleanup I guess, except if you're a taxpayer then ultimately you will be.
      - dyauspitr 2y ago
        Automobiles, especially if they’re electric contribute relatively little to overall climate change (6-9% currently for ICE vehicles). Your proposed justification is a ridiculous reason to force people to live in coops.
        Turskarama 2y ago
        A walkable city and a coop are not the same thing, but anyway here are some more justifications. Even if you discount CO2, cars still produce a lot of plastic waste in the form of tyre wear, estimated as about 9% of that currently produced (https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/BreakingThePlasticWave_MainReport.pdf https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Breaki...). EVs actually produce _more_ of this because of their weight. Cars are also the primary source of noise pollution (again, even EVs) and are responsible for a considerably number of deaths (number 1 cause of deaths outside of disease). Road maintainance is also one of the highest financial burdens on towns, to the extent that towns actually are unable to pay for their own road maintainance at all and taxes from people living in cities needs to make up the shortfall. A massive reduction in driving would constitute an enormous cost reduction for the federal government, allowing taxes to be allocated to other sectors. Maybe none of these seem particularly compelling by itself, but taken together it adds up to a lot of reasons to reduce car reliance to whatever extent we can.
- hex2 2y ago
  In an ideal car-less city, public transportation should be adequate in moving people from their neighborhoods to places that are walkable. You can have your ideal home while still living in a place that doesn't prioritize 2-ton death machines over actual people.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    If public transportation is beneficial to a city, you've already missed the ideal mark by a long shot. The ideal city has no need for movement of people over distances where mechanical movement is the only practical option.
    - Turskarama 2y ago
      That's not really realistic though, you shouldn't need to use "mechanical movement" _every day_ but that's a far cry from never needing it at all. At the very least if you ever want to go somewhere else you're going to need a way to get to an airport (or I guess in this ideal utopia a train station).
      - randomdata 2y ago
        Why is it not realistic? If you feel the need to leave, is it really the ideal city? It seems that you're hung up on imagining the shitty cities of today, except without cars, not anything resembling an ideal city.
        Turskarama 2y ago
        Sorry but this take is just ridiculous. A city is not "ideal" if you never want to leave? What about visiting friends, or traveling, or seeing family?
        randomdata 2y ago
        Why wouldn't your friends and family also live in the ideal city? What is the ideal city lacking that sees you need to travel for other reasons? Don't get hung up imagining the shitty cities of today, except without cars, actually think about an ideal city.
OldGuyInTheClub 2y ago
Fine if you are young, able-bodied, don't need medical care, and don't mind living with the sights, sounds, and smells of a lot of other people. Not to mention the algorithmic rent hikes and whatever restrictions the landlord imposes.
- svpk 2y ago
  I don't think your comment on being young and able-bodied follows. I certainly know people who can't drive due to their disabilities; I've never met someone who could drive but couldn't use some kind of personal mobility device (walker, scooter, wheelchair, etc.). Presumably medical care would be available via public transit, ambulances would be an obvious exception to a ban on cars, and your doctor's office would be in your neighborhood. I suppose if you can't stand other people then living in a community would be an issue, but the majority of people tend to enjoy being around other people. Then densities required for being car-free aren't that high regardless. I'm not really sure how such a place would be more susceptible to algorithms and bad landlords than anywhere else.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    So a full road network, big enough to access every residence, will still be required. But it'll just be 99%+ empty?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - voisin 2y ago
      I think the idea is large pedestrian only paths, interruptible in rare occasions by emergency vehicles or for moving large things (perhaps car priority during very limited hours?)
      - MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Sure the roads on average can be a lot narrower, assuming perfect coordination, but it will still be a needed pretty much in all the same places...
orionblastar 2y ago
Before we had cars, we had cities with general stores and stores for every need. Later when cars were in use trucks carried goods to Walmart and other big box stores that put the smaller stores out of business.
- erik_seaberg 2y ago
  The customers voted for longer hours and wider selection. Now we see online shopping and home/locker delivery taking over.
  - orionblastar 2y ago
    Yes, but the trucks still deliver the goods. Instead of brick-and-mortar stores, we have web stores.
someonehere 2y ago
Peoplemover like Walt Disney and vision with Epcot and the original design
vouaobrasil 2y ago
First, make sure enough of it is natural habitat for animals so people don't have to drive to national parks outside the city to gain some contact with nature.
tim333 2y ago
It's interesting that rather than walking everywhere and getting busses they seem to have gone with ebikes. I've found in practice that kind of thing is a very pleasant way to get around. Unlike walking/busses it's pretty quick. Also unlike non electric bikes it's kind of effortless which is good for older people - I'm 60 and find non electric a bit tiring now. And unlike cars parking isn't really a problem. Also unlike motorcycles, limiting the speed to 15-20 mph makes it mostly non fatal accident wise.

51 points by pseudolus 2y ago

Was this an edited title, or some A/B testing? Because the title I see is Can Car-free Living Make You Happier?, and what is described in the article is hardly a town, but more like an oversized apartment complex.

pseudolus 2y ago
The title, as submitted, appears under the "Long Reads" menu on the website: https://www.outsideonline.com/tag/outside-features/ https://www.outsideonline.com/tag/outside-features/
gedy 2y ago
Yeah this place again. I mean kudos on trying something new, but it's basically condos/apartments with no parking, and surrounded by rest of Tempe, AZ. It's puffing this up to be something it's not.

dyauspitr 2y ago

I haven’t read the article but a town without cars implies that I’ll have to live in close proximity to a lot of people. Which means it’s apartment and condo living or living with no significant backyards. Both of these would be immediate dealbreakers for me.

epolanski 2y ago
If you don't want to live near people, maybe you don't want to live in a town. But for people that live in towns, they shouldn't live in environments built for cars rather than people. I'm European and lived in Columbus, Ohio for a period and traveled the US a bit and I just can't understand how can people do not recognize those cities are barely livable, walkable let alone enjoyable. At the end of the day it's a matter of trade offs and I have nothing against people willing to live in car oriented cities, I'm just surprised that it's like that literally everywhere bar some downtowns I've seen like Boston (but my memory may fail me), there should be more variety of city planning, rather than isolated buildings with countless parkings everywhere. Also, cars are really bad for health, even if they are not gas powered tires create tons of dust. If you've lived in a city and a country you know the difference in dirt in them, and it's largely car dependent.
- josephcsible 2y ago
  > If you don't want to live near people, maybe you don't want to live in a town. You're right. The problem is all of the people saying things to the effect of "we need to ban low-density single-family housing to save the environment" who want to keep us from living how we want.
  - Turskarama 2y ago
    I guess the question is do we think twice as many tornadoes a year and billions of dollars in coastal property lost is a fair trade off for a small percentage of people getting to live in the sticks. Seems easy if you're not the one paying for the cleanup I guess, except if you're a taxpayer then ultimately you will be.
    - dyauspitr 2y ago
      Automobiles, especially if they’re electric contribute relatively little to overall climate change (6-9% currently for ICE vehicles). Your proposed justification is a ridiculous reason to force people to live in coops.
      - Turskarama 2y ago
        A walkable city and a coop are not the same thing, but anyway here are some more justifications. Even if you discount CO2, cars still produce a lot of plastic waste in the form of tyre wear, estimated as about 9% of that currently produced (https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/BreakingThePlasticWave_MainReport.pdf https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Breaki...). EVs actually produce _more_ of this because of their weight. Cars are also the primary source of noise pollution (again, even EVs) and are responsible for a considerably number of deaths (number 1 cause of deaths outside of disease). Road maintainance is also one of the highest financial burdens on towns, to the extent that towns actually are unable to pay for their own road maintainance at all and taxes from people living in cities needs to make up the shortfall. A massive reduction in driving would constitute an enormous cost reduction for the federal government, allowing taxes to be allocated to other sectors. Maybe none of these seem particularly compelling by itself, but taken together it adds up to a lot of reasons to reduce car reliance to whatever extent we can.
hex2 2y ago
In an ideal car-less city, public transportation should be adequate in moving people from their neighborhoods to places that are walkable. You can have your ideal home while still living in a place that doesn't prioritize 2-ton death machines over actual people.
- randomdata 2y ago
  If public transportation is beneficial to a city, you've already missed the ideal mark by a long shot. The ideal city has no need for movement of people over distances where mechanical movement is the only practical option.
  - Turskarama 2y ago
    That's not really realistic though, you shouldn't need to use "mechanical movement" _every day_ but that's a far cry from never needing it at all. At the very least if you ever want to go somewhere else you're going to need a way to get to an airport (or I guess in this ideal utopia a train station).
    - randomdata 2y ago
      Why is it not realistic? If you feel the need to leave, is it really the ideal city? It seems that you're hung up on imagining the shitty cities of today, except without cars, not anything resembling an ideal city.
      - Turskarama 2y ago
        Sorry but this take is just ridiculous. A city is not "ideal" if you never want to leave? What about visiting friends, or traveling, or seeing family?
        randomdata 2y ago
        Why wouldn't your friends and family also live in the ideal city? What is the ideal city lacking that sees you need to travel for other reasons? Don't get hung up imagining the shitty cities of today, except without cars, actually think about an ideal city.

OldGuyInTheClub 2y ago

Fine if you are young, able-bodied, don't need medical care, and don't mind living with the sights, sounds, and smells of a lot of other people. Not to mention the algorithmic rent hikes and whatever restrictions the landlord imposes.

svpk 2y ago
I don't think your comment on being young and able-bodied follows. I certainly know people who can't drive due to their disabilities; I've never met someone who could drive but couldn't use some kind of personal mobility device (walker, scooter, wheelchair, etc.). Presumably medical care would be available via public transit, ambulances would be an obvious exception to a ban on cars, and your doctor's office would be in your neighborhood. I suppose if you can't stand other people then living in a community would be an issue, but the majority of people tend to enjoy being around other people. Then densities required for being car-free aren't that high regardless. I'm not really sure how such a place would be more susceptible to algorithms and bad landlords than anywhere else.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  So a full road network, big enough to access every residence, will still be required. But it'll just be 99%+ empty?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - voisin 2y ago
    I think the idea is large pedestrian only paths, interruptible in rare occasions by emergency vehicles or for moving large things (perhaps car priority during very limited hours?)
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      Sure the roads on average can be a lot narrower, assuming perfect coordination, but it will still be a needed pretty much in all the same places...

orionblastar 2y ago

Before we had cars, we had cities with general stores and stores for every need. Later when cars were in use trucks carried goods to Walmart and other big box stores that put the smaller stores out of business.

erik_seaberg 2y ago
The customers voted for longer hours and wider selection. Now we see online shopping and home/locker delivery taking over.
- orionblastar 2y ago
  Yes, but the trucks still deliver the goods. Instead of brick-and-mortar stores, we have web stores.

someonehere 2y ago

Peoplemover like Walt Disney and vision with Epcot and the original design

vouaobrasil 2y ago

First, make sure enough of it is natural habitat for animals so people don't have to drive to national parks outside the city to gain some contact with nature.

tim333 2y ago

It's interesting that rather than walking everywhere and getting busses they seem to have gone with ebikes. I've found in practice that kind of thing is a very pleasant way to get around. Unlike walking/busses it's pretty quick. Also unlike non electric bikes it's kind of effortless which is good for older people - I'm 60 and find non electric a bit tiring now. And unlike cars parking isn't really a problem. Also unlike motorcycles, limiting the speed to 15-20 mph makes it mostly non fatal accident wise.