98
As rents soar, tenants organize local protests. But what's needed for a national housing movement? | CBC News (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
228 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 3 years ago (2 children)

I think that's the goal. All of your essentials are available within walking distance, while your workplace is accessible by transit. Obviously, you can't move every time you switch jobs, so transit is still necessary. It also provides mobility for when you want to, y'know, shop at another grocery store or eat at another restaurant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Yeah there is no possible way that everywhere a person needs to go can be within reasonable walking distance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago*

    Fortunately, the serious advocates for more walkable cities aren't calling for absolutely everything to be within walking distance, only the most commonly accessed things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Where do you go in a typical day or week or month? Groceries, restaurants, gyms, entertainment, maybe the doctor/dentist?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    I think we are on the same page, my comment was meant to agree with you.

    All of the most common essentials (groceries, pharmacy, etc.) along with some shops/restaurants have enough patronage to justify high density / be within walking distance of most people in an urban environment. While things that are farther away (both less common essentials and non-essential) should be accessible through transit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    Trouble is, if there is somewhere you need to go that is so unique that a dense city population cannot support it locally, within walking distance, you also won't have the ridership necessary to support transit to that destination. Just you sitting on the train doesn't work – even the original comment said that cars are necessary in such cases. Mass transit requires mass ridership.

    Our "solution" to that problem is to make cities wannabe rural areas, where the services are many kilometres away from where the people live, requiring a trip by car/train/bus/whatever just to do anything. Then you have some guarantee of mass ridership. But having to get into a vehicle to do anything is a horrible way to live. It's the worst part of living rurally with none of the upside of living rurally. If you are going to live in a city, why not embrace it? I get having a large rural acreage is everyone's ultimate dream, but maybe it is time to accept it is not in the cards and start to love the one you're with?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago*

    Who provides to the local (walkable) economy if the people are hopping on transit to get to work? People who live in other communities also jumping on transit? Isn't that rather silly?

    That is exactly the kind of thing you would expect from a poorly designed city, sure, but the discussion taking place here is looking for better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent