3 ms·

Dealing with urban sprawl is effectively the first step. There are ongoing movements to reinvent suburbs into communities, which could theoretically attract loc

Dealing with urban sprawl is effectively the first step. There are ongoing movements to reinvent suburbs into communities, which could theoretically attract localized businesses to reduce the amount that people need to commute. It's important to recognize that the long commutes came about because of cars. Because it was possible to take the open road to get to work, sprawl was a reasonable option. And then everyone joined in on the fun and the open road vanished. It's a bait-and-switch. This doesn't mean that getting rid of cars will automatically fix things, but deliberately removing our dependence on them will absolutely help because part of that action is fixing things.

eddieroger 13y ago
Long commutes are enabled by cars, but I don't think they're the direct cause - sprawl was a thing before cars as we know them came about. It's a natural phenomenon to move away from the civic center, we are just able to move father away because of cars. Before that, it was horses and carriages. Cars let us move further our, sure. Specifically in my case, the company I work for is located in my city (despite recent sale to an SF-based one). They chose a prestigious address over being near where the already sparse urban living was, and even that is geared at singles and young couples. I couldn't live near work if I wanted to. Personally I don't think cars are a bad thing and I don't want to trade mine for a bike or the bus. I like the freedom a car gives me. I don't have to plan my route to work on anything or anyone. I can leave when I want. I can go to lunch farther away from my office. Yes, it's contributing to climate change, and we need to solve that problem, but I don't think the solution is removing dependance on cars.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > sprawl was a thing before cars as we know them came about. It's a natural phenomenon to move away from the civic center It is to a degree: it is a sign of status to be able to afford actual land from which you can bar others, and therefore actually using it isn't terribly surprising. This has been true since before castles were invented. The main difference is that, in those times, it was understood that the occupants were aristocratic elite. > we are just able to move father away because of cars. Before that, it was horses and carriages. Cars let us move further our, sure. Right. The issue isn't the combustible engine; it's the attitude that comes with being a car driver, which isn't that much different from being a horse rider. This is coupled with an illusion that you don't lose the connection to the urban center as a consequence (indeed, in many places, you find that another urban center inexorably becomes necessary). > Yes, it's contributing to climate change, and we need to solve that problem, but I don't think the solution is removing dependance on cars. The problem that I want to solve is a fundamentally broken social structure incapable of doing things like opposing the NSA in a meaningful sense and the IDL is an exception rather than a rule. Cars contribute to this problem by weakening the social basis by which we commit civic action and by disenfranchising the core of our human populations (the percentage of human beings in urban centers broke 50% a long time ago) in order to service the more far-flung. This is the essence of the city. Everything is connected. Our democracy is broken and this is part of the reason. People complain about how no one cares about the real issues. Why not? In part because they're exhausted from their commute. Certainly there are other reasons, but this is one and it's big.

eddieroger 13y ago

Long commutes are enabled by cars, but I don't think they're the direct cause - sprawl was a thing before cars as we know them came about. It's a natural phenomenon to move away from the civic center, we are just able to move father away because of cars. Before that, it was horses and carriages. Cars let us move further our, sure. Specifically in my case, the company I work for is located in my city (despite recent sale to an SF-based one). They chose a prestigious address over being near where the already sparse urban living was, and even that is geared at singles and young couples. I couldn't live near work if I wanted to. Personally I don't think cars are a bad thing and I don't want to trade mine for a bike or the bus. I like the freedom a car gives me. I don't have to plan my route to work on anything or anyone. I can leave when I want. I can go to lunch farther away from my office. Yes, it's contributing to climate change, and we need to solve that problem, but I don't think the solution is removing dependance on cars.

saraid216 13y ago
> sprawl was a thing before cars as we know them came about. It's a natural phenomenon to move away from the civic center It is to a degree: it is a sign of status to be able to afford actual land from which you can bar others, and therefore actually using it isn't terribly surprising. This has been true since before castles were invented. The main difference is that, in those times, it was understood that the occupants were aristocratic elite. > we are just able to move father away because of cars. Before that, it was horses and carriages. Cars let us move further our, sure. Right. The issue isn't the combustible engine; it's the attitude that comes with being a car driver, which isn't that much different from being a horse rider. This is coupled with an illusion that you don't lose the connection to the urban center as a consequence (indeed, in many places, you find that another urban center inexorably becomes necessary). > Yes, it's contributing to climate change, and we need to solve that problem, but I don't think the solution is removing dependance on cars. The problem that I want to solve is a fundamentally broken social structure incapable of doing things like opposing the NSA in a meaningful sense and the IDL is an exception rather than a rule. Cars contribute to this problem by weakening the social basis by which we commit civic action and by disenfranchising the core of our human populations (the percentage of human beings in urban centers broke 50% a long time ago) in order to service the more far-flung. This is the essence of the city. Everything is connected. Our democracy is broken and this is part of the reason. People complain about how no one cares about the real issues. Why not? In part because they're exhausted from their commute. Certainly there are other reasons, but this is one and it's big.