• feduser934@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    if you design a city with the assumption that people won’t have cars, you can make it easier to bike and walk to most of the things you need. This kind of urban design is superior to the car centered urban design in that it’s cheaper, healthier, safer, and more environmentaly friendly.

    • Perhapsjustsniffit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      What if you don’t live in a city? We are country folk and operate a farm that feeds you city folks. Cities can’t exist with out us back woods country folk. Our “car” works every day.

      • feduser934@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m talking about urban design. If you live on a farm, this doesn’t apply to you. However, it does apply to the 98% of people in America who don’t live on farms.

      • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Nobody is suggesting that you put a light rail out to the local farm. The urban area will be urban and the rural area will be rural. Where work is needed is connecting up the suburbs and ensuring that you can get to your places of work/school/etc without driving. Some cities never deconstructed themselves for cars (see SF/NYC) and are doing well. Other cities (see Cincinnati, OKC, etc) have room to grow.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Actual country folk are less then 15% of the US. You are probably talking about Suburbs or Exurb dwellers, and those shouldn’t exit.

    • lemmefixdat4u@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      So which city are we going to tear down and rebuild first? And we have to come up with some new laws, like you can only own a home that’s within walking/biking distance of your work.

      We had a taste of a viable alternative, thanks to the pandemic. Remote work - it accomplishes most of what you propose without totally ditching private transportation. Maybe we should make that a law - business has to show that physical presence is required or they must allow employees to work remotely.

      • feduser934@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        So which city are we going to tear down and rebuild first?

        It’s not a good idea to tear down a city and build a new one centraly planned. Don’t be Bob Moses. We want gradual, community directed, increases to the density of cities, and we want to stop building new stroads.

        We have to come up with some new laws like you can only own a home that’s within walking/biking distance of your work.

        That’s a bad idea. We should just tweak the existing zoning laws to allow high density everywhere, and mandate it in some places.

        [Remote work] accomplishes most of what you propose

        I strongly disagree. The commute to and from work should not be the only transportation need in a healthy life. People should also visit shops, visit friends, and visit parks. These trips should not require a personal car. Not to mention the large (majority?) number of jobs that absolutely cannot be done remotely.

        The pandemic did not cause large changes in uban design, and absolutely did not make streets safer for pedestrians, so I disagree that remote work accomplishes most of my goals.