We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
devonzuegel.com
We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
1–10 of 344 posts
Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
#2A walkable urban utopia sounds wonderful, for those of us that work, shop, and eat within miles of our homes. But where is exactly that feasible? To what percentage of people?
"Affordable housing would be far more attainable if our infrastructure encouraged walking and alternative forms of transportation."
The problem you see in Seattle and San Francisco, there's no room. I don't know if removing parking lots is the answer to this, in areas I've seen, again, partially due to zoning restrictions and space. Just as easy to say we should be building cities for instantaneous teleportation, and not driving, but that's not the reality we live in.
Curious what other people think.
Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
#3I agree, but "people" should mean all people, not just the able bodied.
Cities keep on inexplicably designing these cool pedestrian only areas for the able bodied and young. There are people who can only travel limited distances, so if you set the beach front back half a mile, you've now cut it off from many older and disabled people.
What I am saying is: For the physically young and able, vehicle-less areas as great, for the elderly and or disabled, vehicles are an absolute lifeline to be able to gain access to things.
For a specific example, where I grew up the shops were pedestrianized (think outdoor mall), my mom had a stroke and struggles to walk, but can drive. The distance from a car door to a shop is a good ten minutes, so she simply doesn't go there. She goes to out-of-town supermarkets with disabled bays right near the entrance.
If the utopia this article wants comes to pass you have to design it with disabled access in mind. "Walk ten+ minutes" is a non-starter.
Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
#4I agree, but "people" should mean all people, not just the able bodied. Cities keep on inexplicably designing these cool pedestrian only areas for the able bodied and young. There are people who can only travel limited distances, so if you set the beach front back half a mile, you've now cut it off from many older and disabled people. What I am saying is: For the physically young and able, vehicle-less areas as great…
Most sidewalks are accessible to mobility aids; like walkers, scooters, canes, wheelchairs and so forth. _All_ can be designed to be accessible to such.
Moreover, the choice isn't between only pedestrians or only cars; there exists combinations of the two that are more favourable to pedestrians but allow access by vehicle for those that need it.
Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
#5I agree, but "people" should mean all people, not just the able bodied. Cities keep on inexplicably designing these cool pedestrian only areas for the able bodied and young. There are people who can only travel limited distances, so if you set the beach front back half a mile, you've now cut it off from many older and disabled people. What I am saying is: For the physically young and able, vehicle-less areas as great…
Making cities walkable is not ableist, or at least doesn't have to be. In Copenhagen you see motorized wheelchairs using the bike lanes, here in the Bay Area I see motorized wheelchairs forced to operate in dangerous roads because the sidewalks are too narrow or damaged for their scooters.
Further not everyone with a disability can't walk or bike. What about legally blind people? Auto-centric infrastructure is terrible for anyone who is legally barred from driving.
Lastly, every able bodied young person (and that's the majority of the population) that you get out of a car means that road infrastructure get's better for those who genuinely need to use it.
Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
#6I agree, but "people" should mean all people, not just the able bodied. Cities keep on inexplicably designing these cool pedestrian only areas for the able bodied and young. There are people who can only travel limited distances, so if you set the beach front back half a mile, you've now cut it off from many older and disabled people. What I am saying is: For the physically young and able, vehicle-less areas as great…
A lot of big-box retail chains (like Walmart) have mobility scooters to help folks like your mother. Mandating that open, pedestrian friendly spaces have some of these available should be pretty easy.
There are also disabilities that are exacerbated by driving rather than aiding. Legally blind folks can walk but have a much harder time driving.
Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
#7I agree, but "people" should mean all people, not just the able bodied. Cities keep on inexplicably designing these cool pedestrian only areas for the able bodied and young. There are people who can only travel limited distances, so if you set the beach front back half a mile, you've now cut it off from many older and disabled people. What I am saying is: For the physically young and able, vehicle-less areas as great…
Most sidewalks are accessible to mobility aids; like walkers, scooters, canes, wheelchairs and so forth. _All_ can be designed to be accessible to such. Moreover, the choice isn't between only pedestrians or only cars; there exists combinations of the two that are more favourable to pedestrians but allow access by vehicle for those that need it.
> Most sidewalks are accessible to mobility aids; like walkers, scooters, canes, wheelchairs and so forth.
If people cannot traverse the distance required, it doesn't really help.
For example someone with bad osteoporosis, and who doesn't have a $10K+ wheelchair and a $75K minivan to carry it, won't really gain much by theoretical ADA sidewalks if the distance is too far.
Claiming stuff is "disabled accessible" without really considering the people we're talking about is just a lie society tell itself to feel less guilty.
Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
#8I agree, but "people" should mean all people, not just the able bodied. Cities keep on inexplicably designing these cool pedestrian only areas for the able bodied and young. There are people who can only travel limited distances, so if you set the beach front back half a mile, you've now cut it off from many older and disabled people. What I am saying is: For the physically young and able, vehicle-less areas as great…
Making cities walkable is not ableist, or at least doesn't have to be. In Copenhagen you see motorized wheelchairs using the bike lanes, here in the Bay Area I see motorized wheelchairs forced to operate in dangerous roads because the sidewalks are too narrow or damaged for their scooters. Further not everyone with a disability can't walk or bike. What about legally blind people? Auto-centric infrastructure is terrib…
I don't think the person you're replying to is saying that you should build exclusively for one class of people. You need to look more broadly when you design cities.
Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
#9I agree, but "people" should mean all people, not just the able bodied. Cities keep on inexplicably designing these cool pedestrian only areas for the able bodied and young. There are people who can only travel limited distances, so if you set the beach front back half a mile, you've now cut it off from many older and disabled people. What I am saying is: For the physically young and able, vehicle-less areas as great…
sidewalks are usually wheelchair accessible...
Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making cities walkable is not ableist, or at least doesn't have to be. In Copenhagen you see motorized wheelchairs using the bike lanes, here in the Bay Area I see motorized wheelchairs forced to operate in dangerous roads because the sidewalks are too narrow or damaged for their scooters. Further not everyone with a disability can't walk or bike. What about legally blind people? Auto-centric infrastructure is terrib…
I don't think the person you're replying to is saying that you should build exclusively for one class of people. You need to look more broadly when you design cities.
The point of the article is that what is being done in places like San Francisco is what looking more broadly looks like. It's not ableist to allow people who'd prefer not to drive to bike or walk instead, and it's also not ableist to build our cities to allow these different modes of transport in addition to cars. Framing it like it's ableist ignores the near century of subsidies and prioitization of the automobile in the US.
The fact is that us able-bodied people need spaces that we can enjoy too. We need to find a way to inhabit the same space without inhibiting each other.