Bogotanian here. This is one of the most unlivable cities there is. As soon as you step out the door you're aggravated in a thousands ways through your day. Bogotá and Colombia usually score high in the "happiness" rankings because of a servitude mentality that dates back to the colony. Inequality is very high even for Latin American standards and people are taught to accept and embrace it. You'll rarely see protests in this country despite the rampant corruption and nepotistic governments. People don't have the notion that democracy is supposed to empower them, and don't know things can and should be better. And of course blind catholic fanaticism only helps to keep them contained. So they think they're "happy".
Secrets of the world's happiest cities
21–30 of 68 posts
Re: Secrets of the world's happiest cities
#22Extra space, cleaner air, healthier and happier people, safer streets... Is there really any downside to banning personal cars from the city? Leave the roads for cyclists, public transportation, emergency vehicles and delivery vehicles. Suburbanites can park outside of the city can go the rest of the way via bus/train/bicycle. http://ecooptimism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/bike-bus-c...
> Is there really any downside to banning personal cars from the city? The fact that you're stomping all over a person's right to own property and use it as they wish? Oh sure, the city will prosper as a result, but when you start making rules solely for the sake of the majority, throwing basic principles into the garbage bin, you set a precedent. A precedent where anything that's for the greater good passes muster,…
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not (60-40 that you aren't - that's not to belittle you, I think you raised points worth discussing either way) - so in the case that you aren't, a response:
You keep cars on the periphery of the city, and have good public transit to and from them. So your 30 minute trip turns into a 20 minute public transit ride to your car (or a 10 minute taxi ride), and then say a 25 minute drive - longer than before, but not 4 hours. So no, you are not "fucked over".
And presumably, this comes with an increase in public transit quality. Most cities now are built around cars, but they don't have to be. Also, something like this would have to happen gradually - make dedicated non-private vehicle lanes (buses, taxis, etc), build up public transit, disincentivize cars via taxes and zoning, etc.
A place that's perhaps in range of this is Manhattan - most people I know, quite successful, don't own cars - and the ones that do use them to get out of the city on weekends, not for daily transit. It's a place where owning a car is pretty much worse than not - expensive and rare parking, high insurance, congested roads, etc. No joke, I know at least one senior executive here who doesn't have a driver's license because he let it expire.
And why do this? Because we should be building safe, healthy, happy, sustainable and affordable cities - something which cars are not contributing too. So ban them outright? Of course not - but maybe phasing out private vehicles in cities over the next 20 years is something worth seriously considering.
Re: Secrets of the world's happiest cities
#23Extra space, cleaner air, healthier and happier people, safer streets... Is there really any downside to banning personal cars from the city? Leave the roads for cyclists, public transportation, emergency vehicles and delivery vehicles. Suburbanites can park outside of the city can go the rest of the way via bus/train/bicycle. http://ecooptimism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/bike-bus-c...
The downside is that you will kill the city.
I am not sure about larger cities, but smaller cities (i.e. 200k- people) this sure applies.
Banning personal cars makes the very majority of people, who lives just outside the city, to go shopping in the large centers (read: Walmart and siblings) placed outside the city. This does not only kill all the stores in the city, but also all coffee shops and what-else that goes with having shoppers running around. But sure, you will indeed have space, clean air, and safety in a ghost-town.
Re: Secrets of the world's happiest cities
#24Extra space, cleaner air, healthier and happier people, safer streets... Is there really any downside to banning personal cars from the city? Leave the roads for cyclists, public transportation, emergency vehicles and delivery vehicles. Suburbanites can park outside of the city can go the rest of the way via bus/train/bicycle. http://ecooptimism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/bike-bus-c...
> Is there really any downside to banning personal cars from the city? The fact that you're stomping all over a person's right to own property and use it as they wish? Oh sure, the city will prosper as a result, but when you start making rules solely for the sake of the majority, throwing basic principles into the garbage bin, you set a precedent. A precedent where anything that's for the greater good passes muster,…
Any rational planning system would enhance public transport to mitigate the effects of curtailing widespread use of privately owned cars. However, you seem to be American so perhaps the notion of rational planning is alien to you. Certainly the use of verbiage like "stomping all over a person's right to own property and use it as they wish" would indicate that rational thought is alien to you.
Re: Secrets of the world's happiest cities
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
The automobile-industrial complex that destroyed public transportation in the US would never let it happen here. Maybe in other countries it's a possibility. Or maybe in the future when the major car manufacturers FINALLY go under. I support visionary tech like the HyperLoop even if only because it shows that there are some smart people who can actually see the problem and that they are thinking of ways of solving it…
There are other problems that need to be solved before public transit can fully replace automobiles. Consider groceries. I can't get two weeks of groceries for two people without a car. Wine bottles get heavy, and stacking bags on my arms risks crushing my eggs. I imagine it's even more complicated for those with larger families. It's also generally cheaper to pick up furniture with Zipcar than it is to have furnitur…
When you live in a walkable neighborhood, you quickly realize that you don't need to get groceries for two weeks in one trip. I go to the grocery store 4-5 times per week, spending maybe 10-15 minutes max each time.
Re: Secrets of the world's happiest cities
#26The article mentions something along the lines of people who walk to work are happier than if they drove to work. I wonder how remote working from home compares in happiness to walking to a separate but nearby place of work? When I've worked from home for sustained periods, I've felt happier when taking regular walks than if I stay indoors all day. I've found walking before the work day starts to be the most benefici…
Definitely. I find that walking outside, daily, is very important, and easy to forget to do when you're working from home really intensely.
Re: Secrets of the world's happiest cities
#27The car is a textbook case of catastrophically bad scaling. For sporadic use (errands, long trips, leisure) it's amazing. For daily commuting (60 miles per day, plus parking) it's horrible. Space-consuming, polluting, expensive (except cheap relative to, e.g., Amtrak because no one uses the latter) and unsafe when abused to the point that cars are (operated while drunk, while seriously ill, or at unreasonable speeds…
Don't forget the perverse incentives of mandated "free" parking, resulting in every pedestrian, cyclist, and transit user subsidizing everyone who parks somewhere (in addition to the horrible sprawl effects).
Exactly. Even in places that are generally enamoured with free markets, you never see this. It would be fun to see market-priced parking in places like Manhattan - what would happen?
Re: Secrets of the world's happiest cities
#28I wrote a related article about a year ago that discusses a major threat to Canada's identity: A Big Reason Canadians are so Happy (and Why it's at Risk): http://allsprawldown.com/activism/a-big-reason-canadians-are...
Re: Secrets of the world's happiest cities
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is there really any downside to banning personal cars from the city? The fact that you're stomping all over a person's right to own property and use it as they wish? Oh sure, the city will prosper as a result, but when you start making rules solely for the sake of the majority, throwing basic principles into the garbage bin, you set a precedent. A precedent where anything that's for the greater good passes muster,…
Any rational planning system would enhance public transport to mitigate the effects of curtailing widespread use of privately owned cars. However, you seem to be American so perhaps the notion of rational planning is alien to you. Certainly the use of verbiage like "stomping all over a person's right to own property and use it as they wish" would indicate that rational thought is alien to you.
I call the same false mentality as with gun regulation. There are things many Americans won't ever understand :'(
Re: Secrets of the world's happiest cities
#30Extra space, cleaner air, healthier and happier people, safer streets... Is there really any downside to banning personal cars from the city? Leave the roads for cyclists, public transportation, emergency vehicles and delivery vehicles. Suburbanites can park outside of the city can go the rest of the way via bus/train/bicycle. http://ecooptimism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/bike-bus-c...
The downside is that you will kill the city. I am not sure about larger cities, but smaller cities (i.e. 200k- people) this sure applies. Banning personal cars makes the very majority of people, who lives just outside the city, to go shopping in the large centers (read: Walmart and siblings) placed outside the city. This does not only kill all the stores in the city, but also all coffee shops and what-else that goes…
Nobody who lives outside of the city would ever be expected to give up their vehicle.
The corollary, is, however, that this means that people need to live IN the city, and the city needs to NOT be sprawling, and have good transit networks (paths, bike lanes, p. transit)