91–100 of 108 posts
But if there was no parking wouldn't the value of said cities plummet? Do you want to open your place of business where no one can park for a mile?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
are suddenly passionately saying livable cities are a way to control us. Look at what the government and Big Tech are doing. There are constant articles here being posted about surveillance, loss of privacy, etc. It's a whole lot easier to control the population when you gradually make it harder for them to travel unhindered and untracked. Chickens in a factory farm can be described as being in "livable" conditions.…
You control the population through psychological isolation, not physical isolation. In general, people driving cars are no harder to control than people without cars. They are no harder to track. Like, at all. You also have to realize that the only car that increases your freedom is your own: everybody else's reduces your freedom. They take a lot of space, they make a lot of noise, they reduce visibility, they hinder…
I happen to like the space and enjoy the noise.[1] So does nearly everyone around me.
You can squeeze together in your claustrophobic factory-farm cities if you like, but leave those who don't out of it.
[1] I highly recommend taking a ride in a 70s "land yacht" with a mildly tuned engine sometime. It might change your perception of cars entirely if all you've been in are cramped sluggish econoboxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you couldn't and it wasn't What are you talking about, millions of people do it and live without cars in cities. I did it for years in Paris and it's not a "smaller life" — the main things that are smaller are your transportation budget and stress levels.
Absolutely agreed. Just about everything within 10 minutes drive is a total fantasy in my experience. Whether you’re in the suburbs driving or walking in the urban centre. The only difference is that walking is much more pleasant. That said, if you expand your time radius to 15 minutes, and allow the use of bikes and/or a good subway system, “just about everything” becomes very realistic.
I also have no interest in waiting around for a subway car. It’s nice to just hop into my car and get to my destination (most within 15 minutes of my home) and get back. I don’t have time to wait around or ride a bike in the rain.
The entire northern suburbs in my city have been designed around my “evil” car beliefs. It’s worked so well that our city population keeps declining and my area just keeps adding more and more houses and businesses.
You like your way, I’ll live mine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nearly half of parking lots' space a dedicated to move in and out. That space isn't needed with street parking because the street itself accomplish this function. Parking lots are mostly used only half of the day and empty otherwise, because typically people drive their car around in a few different parking lots. Streets are useful all day long. I'm unconvinced removing street parking would allow for smaller streets…
Have you seen what streets in Japan look like? Very narrow, very walkable, views unobstructed by rows of cars; the streets become a place for interaction, a place for children to play, etc. It works because street parking is not allowed.
someone in the chain just needs to bite the short term bullet to start a cascade of events that will make american cities more liveable
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because most of those cities were built up before cars existed, and even horse-drawn carriages were a luxury for the few. Many American cities on the other hand have grown up with the car, with wide streets dividing neighborhoods, and essential facilities scattered far away from one another. Reducing car usage in a typical American city (not downtown Manhattan) is not just a matter of banning cars or replacing…
This is untrue. Most American cities were built before the car and even had wide streetcar networks. Buildings and (often poor and black) neighborhoods were torn down to make way for urban highways. Car manufacturers literally bought up streetcar companies just to rip out tracks and sell more cars. Europe picked up on this trend too a little delayed in many places, but luckily not to the same degree and realized the…
It would be easy to build new suburbs like this but without the location. Or add features to existing suburbs.
Imo, street side parking in cities should just be scrapped. It makes no sense for the public to pay so much money to allow people to park particular kinds of private property for free. Pushing all parking on to businesses own lots or in dedicated parking facilities would let the market adequately price parking rather than externalising the cost.
My neighborhood has less off-street parking than newer ones. Which means all the extra parking goes on the street. The streets are narrow, parking makes them safer by forcing cars to share a single lane. There is no conflict with bikes because the cars are going slowly. There are other neighborhood nearby that have too much street parking and should probably charge more for parking passes.
Sometimes when I hear discussions like this, I can't help but think back to several places I've lived or stayed where using a car was not possible. It sucked. Yes, living in the exact center of a bustling city should be efficient - you should be able to walk everywhere for all your needs and it should be efficient. But the reality was that you couldn't and it wasn't. It took a tremendous toll on your time and the eff…
What are some examples of such car-free places?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Has anyone moved from a semi-dense area where just about anything was within a 10 minute drive, to a situation where they didn't use a car and still lived a decent efficient life? I used to live in Sante Fe, New Mexico in the US. The city was founded in 1610. The city core for the first 300 years was of course walkable, but the last grocery store downtown closed around 2000 so it's a mile walk to the nearest store…
>>> biking isn't really an option in Santa Fe Genuinely curious, what makes biking not an option in Santa Fe?
These days, I love riding my bike everywhere. When I was living in southern Japan for a while, summers there were at least as hot as that summer in Tucson and just about maxed on the humidity. With more age and grit I still rode my bike everywhere, plus took weekend trips through the mountains of the island.
I think not everyone has the patience to build up this grit or, in some cases, might have medical conditions that prevent it. Heat stroke is a concern, as is just showing up places drenched in sweat. Also, looking at a bike lane map of Santa Fe, their infrastructure today is not great.
All this is to say, I think biking in Santa Fe would be an option, but for many it might not be convenient, safe, or desirable.
But if there was no parking wouldn't the value of said cities plummet? Do you want to open your place of business where no one can park for a mile?
It turns out that it doesn’t work that way if people can live closer together. Walking traffic gets you more sales than driving traffic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
are suddenly passionately saying livable cities are a way to control us. Look at what the government and Big Tech are doing. There are constant articles here being posted about surveillance, loss of privacy, etc. It's a whole lot easier to control the population when you gradually make it harder for them to travel unhindered and untracked. Chickens in a factory farm can be described as being in "livable" conditions.…
> It's a whole lot easier to control the population when you gradually make it harder for them to travel unhindered and untracked. Cars are required to have registration and license plates, and most of them have GPS tracking as well. If you don't want to be tracked, ride a bicycle.
Have you tried to take a 500-mile trip on a bicycle? While carrying a hundred pounds of luggage?