157
What is something that definitely should not exist?
(endlesstalk.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
157 points (97.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43958 readers
1497 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
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
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
Actual country folk are less then 15% of the US. You are probably talking about Suburbs or Exurb dwellers, and those shouldn't exit.
If you want to say something shouldn't exist, you have to account for 100% of the people who rely on it.
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.
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.
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.
That's a bad idea. We should just tweak the existing zoning laws to allow high density everywhere, and mandate it in some places.
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.
So we just have to replace all the cities? Sounds easy enough.
Cities change over time. We should make sure those changes improve the city.
singapore is doing this kind of city design already why can't others follow