4 ms·

It seems like roughly the same goal could have been achieved by condemning a comic book store and turning the space into a park. Is there anything to this artic

by chc 12y ago

It seems like roughly the same goal could have been achieved by condemning a comic book store and turning the space into a park. Is there anything to this article that isn't just the observation "People like to go where parks are" repurposed into anti-car propaganda?

bradleyjg 12y ago
The city already owns the parking spots. No need to condemn anything. Just change the use. It isn't anti-car propaganda to point out that huge swaths of valuable public real estate are dedicated to providing free storage for empty cars, and to suggest that there are other uses that would be more beneficial to more people.
- chc 12y ago
  > The city already owns the parking spots. No need to condemn anything. Just change the use. OK, I'll be more explicit: I don't see any evidence that parking lots are special here. It sounds like you could build a park in the place of just about anything else and get the same benefit. It's not clear that this has anything to do with parking lots per se. > It isn't anti-car propaganda to point out that huge swaths of valuable public real estate are dedicated to providing free storage for empty cars, and to suggest that there are other uses that would be more beneficial to more people. How is that not an expression of anti-car sentiment? Are you not suggesting making it less convenient to drive cars?
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    >> It isn't anti-car propaganda to point out that huge swaths of valuable public real estate are dedicated to providing free storage for empty cars, and to suggest that there are other uses that would be more beneficial to more people. > How is that not an expression of anti-car sentiment? Are you not suggesting making it less convenient to drive cars? Because it's not a sentiment, the anti-car idea here emerges straight from a rational cost/benefit analysis. There are many strong arguments for reducing the use of cars in cities - useful space lost to parking is just one of them.
    - chc 12y ago
      > Because it's not a sentiment, the anti-car idea here emerges straight from a rational cost/benefit analysis. No, it doesn't. That's precisely what I've been saying. This article doesn't at all differentiate the benefit of a park from the effect of removing parking, so there is no rational cost/benefit analysis here. > There are many strong arguments for reducing the use of cars in cities - useful space lost to parking is just one of them. I have a hard enough time finding parking in San Diego as it is. I would like to hear a strong argument for preventing me from ever going anywhere.
  - to3m 12y ago
    Well, I'd argue parking spaces are special: because they can be turned into free space, and then turned back into a parking space, very easily! Sometimes you don't even have to do anything - for proof, see parking restrictions intended to free up extra lanes during busy periods, that rely on nothing more than the time of day. This makes the experiment quick and easy to do. (You could also knock down a shop to see what would happen, but that would be harder to reverse, and the owner would be unlikely to agree to it.)
VintageCool 12y ago
It's not as simple as "people like to go where parks are". Some parks will thrive while others are abandoned, and it depends largely on the surrounding neighborhood. If you have a thriving neighborhood with people and businesses and things to do, then introducing a sunny park will make it better. If you have a cluster of office buildings and parking lots with no one living there and no theatres or recreation, then a park will just mean there is even less to do there.
metaphorm 12y ago
why are you so eager to defend cars and car-culture? cars are the single most dangerous thing in the daily lives of most Americans. they are rolling manslaughter engines. they are destroying the environment, leading us inexplorably down a path of global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion. they have been undermining good public transportation infrastructure investment for decades. they are destructive of communities, encouraging sprawl and long distance commuting.
- chc 12y ago
  I don't particularly like cars. If I never had to drive again, I'd be ecstatic. But there isn't much of a choice there. I either have to drive or become a hermit, and that is an even less attractive option. What I guess you'd say I'm defensive of is my ability to lead a normal life.
  - Kluny 12y ago
    There's lots of choices. Bikes, walkind, public transit and rideshare for nearby travel. Planes, trains and buses and boats for far travel. The only restriction in the relatively small percentage of the earth that's so crowded that there isn't an extra plot of land for you to leave your property on. And you're still allowed to go there - if you don't insist on bringing 2 tons of metal with you.
    - chc 12y ago
      > There's lots of choices. Bikes It would take me several hours to get to work and back. It would be even worse for my wife. If we wanted to go out to dinner, the restaurant would be closed by the time we got there. > walking This is even slower than biking. > public transit About as slow as biking, but smelly and without the health benefits. > rideshare Unless I misunderstand, this involves cars, so it is not an alternative to them. > And you're still allowed to go there - if you don't insist on bringing 2 tons of metal with you. As discussed above, this isn't about insisting on bringing two tons of metal — it's about the lack of viable alternatives. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la" won't eliminate the very real and valid reasons why most people in America drive cars.

by chc 12y ago

bradleyjg 12y ago

The city already owns the parking spots. No need to condemn anything. Just change the use. It isn't anti-car propaganda to point out that huge swaths of valuable public real estate are dedicated to providing free storage for empty cars, and to suggest that there are other uses that would be more beneficial to more people.

chc 12y ago
> The city already owns the parking spots. No need to condemn anything. Just change the use. OK, I'll be more explicit: I don't see any evidence that parking lots are special here. It sounds like you could build a park in the place of just about anything else and get the same benefit. It's not clear that this has anything to do with parking lots per se. > It isn't anti-car propaganda to point out that huge swaths of valuable public real estate are dedicated to providing free storage for empty cars, and to suggest that there are other uses that would be more beneficial to more people. How is that not an expression of anti-car sentiment? Are you not suggesting making it less convenient to drive cars?
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  >> It isn't anti-car propaganda to point out that huge swaths of valuable public real estate are dedicated to providing free storage for empty cars, and to suggest that there are other uses that would be more beneficial to more people. > How is that not an expression of anti-car sentiment? Are you not suggesting making it less convenient to drive cars? Because it's not a sentiment, the anti-car idea here emerges straight from a rational cost/benefit analysis. There are many strong arguments for reducing the use of cars in cities - useful space lost to parking is just one of them.
  - chc 12y ago
    > Because it's not a sentiment, the anti-car idea here emerges straight from a rational cost/benefit analysis. No, it doesn't. That's precisely what I've been saying. This article doesn't at all differentiate the benefit of a park from the effect of removing parking, so there is no rational cost/benefit analysis here. > There are many strong arguments for reducing the use of cars in cities - useful space lost to parking is just one of them. I have a hard enough time finding parking in San Diego as it is. I would like to hear a strong argument for preventing me from ever going anywhere.
- to3m 12y ago
  Well, I'd argue parking spaces are special: because they can be turned into free space, and then turned back into a parking space, very easily! Sometimes you don't even have to do anything - for proof, see parking restrictions intended to free up extra lanes during busy periods, that rely on nothing more than the time of day. This makes the experiment quick and easy to do. (You could also knock down a shop to see what would happen, but that would be harder to reverse, and the owner would be unlikely to agree to it.)

VintageCool 12y ago

It's not as simple as "people like to go where parks are". Some parks will thrive while others are abandoned, and it depends largely on the surrounding neighborhood. If you have a thriving neighborhood with people and businesses and things to do, then introducing a sunny park will make it better. If you have a cluster of office buildings and parking lots with no one living there and no theatres or recreation, then a park will just mean there is even less to do there.

metaphorm 12y ago

why are you so eager to defend cars and car-culture? cars are the single most dangerous thing in the daily lives of most Americans. they are rolling manslaughter engines. they are destroying the environment, leading us inexplorably down a path of global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion. they have been undermining good public transportation infrastructure investment for decades. they are destructive of communities, encouraging sprawl and long distance commuting.

chc 12y ago
I don't particularly like cars. If I never had to drive again, I'd be ecstatic. But there isn't much of a choice there. I either have to drive or become a hermit, and that is an even less attractive option. What I guess you'd say I'm defensive of is my ability to lead a normal life.
- Kluny 12y ago
  There's lots of choices. Bikes, walkind, public transit and rideshare for nearby travel. Planes, trains and buses and boats for far travel. The only restriction in the relatively small percentage of the earth that's so crowded that there isn't an extra plot of land for you to leave your property on. And you're still allowed to go there - if you don't insist on bringing 2 tons of metal with you.
  - chc 12y ago
    > There's lots of choices. Bikes It would take me several hours to get to work and back. It would be even worse for my wife. If we wanted to go out to dinner, the restaurant would be closed by the time we got there. > walking This is even slower than biking. > public transit About as slow as biking, but smelly and without the health benefits. > rideshare Unless I misunderstand, this involves cars, so it is not an alternative to them. > And you're still allowed to go there - if you don't insist on bringing 2 tons of metal with you. As discussed above, this isn't about insisting on bringing two tons of metal — it's about the lack of viable alternatives. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la" won't eliminate the very real and valid reasons why most people in America drive cars.