this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
707 points (96.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43858 readers
1681 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Car centric cities. Cities can and should be designed for people, keeping cars mostly out. The result is beautiful cities designed for people that make governments lots of money but the car companies will be earning a little less, ooffff
Make cities walkable, create actual safe roads for bikes, create 15 minute cities.
Look at the Netherlands, it damn works awesome
Average fuckcars poster.
Montreal is great because I think it has a good balance.
Lol no it's not. Been there once, and it's an ugly shithole. Compare Montreal to any people first city and you can either agree it's shit or lie. Give me trees, give me places I can walk, give me nice clean fresh air, give me silence, give me cities designed for humans.
And yes, with that, fuck cars.
If you live outside the city, how do you commute to your workplace in the city? Park and ride?
Yeah, park and ride, bike and ride, complete public transit, or even driving on less crowded highways to cities with more available parking because other people chose other modes.
Ultimately how anyone would commute depends on their own personal factors and what's available. In the future we'll have more multimodal transport and that should make things nicer for everyone.
It's funny people always act like it's impossible for this to work when millions of people do it to NYC from as far north as Dutches county, way down long island, and into Connecticut. Millions more also drive sure enough, but suburban trains are viable the problem is they just dont exist or when they do have poor schedules.
Public transport.
Public transport is unacceptably slow and/or prohibitively expensive in suburbs. It may work well in densely-packed cities, but that requires you to live in a densely-packed city, and that's straight-up dystopian in my book.
If you live in the suburbs and commute into a major city then traffic going into said city is also unbearably slow. But to quickly counter this point, millions of people commute using the NYC suburban spurs for metro north, and south and I can assure you the desnity falls of a cliff as soon as you pass the NYC border.
Likewise there are plenty of alternatives even for suburbs involving things like park and rides and train stations with garages that can help funnel people into roads and on public networks. Ideally a good station should be centralized in the town and but walkable(Ive seen some NYC train stations literally be a random parkinglot in the woods and then there's GoTransit in toronto) but as it will take a long time to right the ship I think making sure theres spots to park your car is important too.
Moving forwards though there should be improvements in zoning law to help right the ship when it comes to car-centric american infrastructure and urban planning.
The frustrating thing is decent density doesnt mean high rises and big city concrete jungle. There are tons of east coast and midwestern neighborhoods that are mostly single family homes on lots, with some multifamily and low rise apartments mixed in on tree lined streets near parks and shopping areas that have densities of more than 11,000 people per sqmi.
The problem with multi-family housing is that it's ripe for abuse by building managers. Unless you own the entire building you live in and the entire plot of land it sits on, you don't own anything, and your home can be taken from you at will without meaningful recourse.
I gather this isn't an issue in Europe, where people have actual protections under the law, but as long as real estate in America remains the Wild West, living in single-family housing is and will remain an absolutely necessary act of self-defense.
Mixed zoning would be good, though. Being able to walk to at least a convenience store would be, well, convenient. If the prices there aren't ludicrously high, anyway, which is a serious problem with convenience stores today.
10s of Millions of people in the united states live in multifamily housing. You're responding to concepts like multifamily housing and public transit as if these are abstracts that huge numbers of americans dont already rely on. There are plenty of areas with bad infrastructure today for this, but thats all the more reason to improve. More missing middle density housing is important to make housing more affordable and improve density and supply.
We can certainly use better and actual proper public housing options like in places like the netherlands, and better renter protections to keep a landlord from upping your rent too much, but thats all the more reason to push forwards.
And every last one of them is made to abide by unnecessary and cruel rules, like prohibiting the use of air conditioners because they change the exterior appearance of the building. Renters are also getting fleeced like sheep and regularly evicted to make room for richer tenants.
Building more non-single-family housing will only exacerbate this problem, not solve it.
No, it's not. Those protections have to happen first, and in this country, they never will.
Public transportation? Bicycle? I cycled 25 Km's (say, 16 miles?) to and from work every day. Took me ~45 minutes or so. Super Healthy, super nice.
You have to already be healthy to do that, though. It's pretty hard to ride a bike when you weigh 200+ pounds.
200+ pounds? I'm 170 and can bike 20 kms easy. My 70 year old mother can ride 50 kms without breaking a sweat.
It's something you get used to fast.
Our current car sprawls are unsustainable
My butt started hurting within seconds of contact with my old childhood bike's seat.
Get a good bike and bike seat. Why are we willing to spend 50K on an awesome car but not 500 on a good bike?
True, I could solve that problem. I have another problem, though: I live in a small apartment, I'm not allowed to store anything on the patio, and bikes are trivial to steal, soβ¦where would I put it? And if I ride it someplace and go inside, where will I leave the bike?
Well I'd say it's easier to store a bike than it is to store a car. Where exactly, I don't know but buy a good lock. A good lock will easily set you back 100-200 dollars but they're worth it.
On where to store the bike at the destination, There a lot depends on (local) governments. In the Netherlands there are bike parkings everywhere, and you start seeing it more and more in Canada (Vancouver at least) but I guess tou can just out it against a light post?
This apartment complex has a parking garage for cars, and cars are not trivial to steal.
From what I've heard, portable angle grinders can easily and quickly cut through any bike lock, including expensive ones.
Hate to break it to you, but cars too are trivial to steal for the right person, just like bikes. I've seen too many "gone in 60 seconds" type of videos (but then the real thing) to have the illusion that any lock will stop everybody.
If there is a car parking garage, then bikes are trivial to park there, unlike cars. Put good locks on the bike, and you're risking 500 insurable dollars versus 20000-60000 more expensive insurable dollars.
I'd rather have my bike stolen than a car.
Depends on if you have cities that people actually want to live in.
In American cities, you generally want to get out of them as quickly as possible so you don't get mugged or shot.
Ironically, that's why the suburbs started existing in the first place, people fleeing crime.
The problem is, our cities (most of them) are already designed for cars. To change them to accommodate walking and public transit would be somewhere near the largest sociological project the world has ever seen. It would require upending every single aspect of everyone's lives in order to refit them around walking and public transit. I think it's unreasonably infeasible at the current time.
lol I hate how the argument is basically, we shouldn't do this because it would be a lot to take on.
Learn to live differently, damn.