In cities that aren’t overbuilt, it makes it so much easier to get things done, see people, and access the outdoors. There’s no substitute for the point to point on demand fast transportation that cars offer. I would even argue it is a big part of what makes those cities attractive. A lot of cities that are beautiful and attractive also have room for cars. Having lived that life for years I can’t imagine why.
#Is there anyway to hack facade signage free
I often see urbanists and young people fantasize about life in car free mega cities. The main point of my initial comment was to point out that this "walk-able utopia" goal is not shared by a great number of people and contravening both the will of the majority and the current state is an exercise in futility and thus a waste of a society's time and resources.
So, I'm not going to engage beyond this comment. In other words, I don't think you're evaluating this issue in good faith or rationally. Your subsequent comments in this thread reveal a fairly extreme and inflexible viewpoint on cars which you advance through many logical fallacies (straw men, false dilemma, and hasty generalizations). These are strong claims without citation. > In every city that has made a concerted effort to accommodate all modes of transport "81% of Americans agree with the sentiment that their car reflects who they are.59% consider themselves as someone who is passionate about cars, trucks, motorcycles, or other vehicles" ħ8% of Americans personally enjoy driving moderately to greatly (seriously, this is straight from several people I know, not something I'm inventing or guessing at) Time to sell before the market drops if you see them working on a new bus stop in walking distance of your house, they say. Crime rates go up and the homeless population shoots up, they say, when they add a bus stop next to your neighborhood. Some folks for whom keeping a working car around isn't a big deal, consider it a feature that their neighborhoods are hard to reach by a combination of public transit and foot. > They are built in such a way the actual city neighborhood is disconnected from its surroundings and makes transit by anything other than car difficult -buses don't go in, and biking is fraught -all relatively close to the downtown area. This means neighborhoods that are right next to each other can be slow to travel between on foot or by bike, without cutting through yards. The general rule seems to be: no more than one exit on any major road bounding the neighborhood. technically two, but the second was marked "dead end" (it wasn't, really, but that was probably still the right thing to label it) and took you on a weird barely-developed road with no other intersecting roads, which looped you back up to the same highway the the neighborhood's other route would have put you on, so even for people who lived right by the connection to that road, leaving the normal way was faster. Our neighborhood before this one? Two exits (it's bigger than this neighborhood and still developing, so I expect it'll get a third pretty soon). Get this: one of those can only be entered if you're going a particular direction on the road it intersects, because there's an unbroken median curb there. oh, I dunno 150houses? At least a dozen named-and-numbered streets present in it? It has two exits. I'm not sure any development built after about 1975 in my midwestern metro area isn't like this, including the sound walls if they're next to an interstate or major highway. It's a tract surrounded by soundwalls and has few exits from the development, whereas in normal developments you have intersections with all streets.
0 kommentar(er)
