you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 1 day ago (5 children)

No idea what the benefit is of deliberately misinterpreting such an obvious point. What caused the thing in the picture wasn't a necessity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    Without restrictions on who could buy a car, the city government had to deal with the issue of either dealing with people parking wherever or making a parking spot people would use.

    You can't ignore human nature.

    You also need to remember that in a democracy, the city government has to accommodate the populations wishes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Little to no restrictions on who could buy, where one can drive, park a car were - and this is the last time I'm reiterating the same point because I know you just pretend not to get it - a choice. A deliberate choice made by thousands of cities around the globe, influenced by auto and oil industries. Cities were totally different before and have often been bulldozed specifically for that choice. And the other way around is perceivable too: once cities stopped deliberately choosing car-centric design, they were able to gradually stop being like that. See Paris post 2015, Amsterdam post 1980s. Both of which could not be had it been a necessity. Because it never was, it was deliberately decided to be this way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

    And I know you are ignoring the reality of the day, we didn't have the same info, the same finances.

    Do you actually want to discuss reality and gain an understanding of what lead the city to build stuff like the parking lot and later to fix it, ot do you just want to bash and yell?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 17 hours ago (1 child)

    Reality is that in places with less room for cars and street design and/or regulations disincentivizing driving, fewer people own cars than in places that have widened roads for car traffic and turned 1/3 of land area into surface parking. Your idea that car ownership is god-given and without space, people will get them either way and stack them on top of each other is delusional. How can San Antonio have a more than 10 times higher car owner rate than Hong Kong? They both have roughly the same GDP per capita. Did Hongkongers just not get the memo? Are they stupid?! Sure, they'd have nowhere to park and the whole island would constantly be gridlocked if they had the 90% car owner rate of San Antonio but none of that matters and they should get a car either way, as nature intended.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 16 hours ago

    Your idea that car ownership is god-given and without space, people will get them either way and stack them on top of each other is delusional.

    That is not my idea, that was the reality of the time.

  • source
  • parent