Green Urban Design MegaBread

[Forever Indomitable]

Salutations NSG, in the midst of indulging my bullet train fetish and reading about how farmers successfully used parasitic wasps to control a mealy bug outbreak in lieu of pesticides, I wanted to create a thread that addresses things like urban environmental degradation, sustainable and healthy urban design, public transportation and ecologically responsible farming within urban settings.

As someone who simultaneously appreciates all that rural & urban life have to offer, I've never seen anything substantially that reconciles the 2. Obviously, you can't have your cake and eat it in every circumstance, but I think we can combine the 2 worlds far more than what we currently have and that's something I'd like to explore, especially in the domains of pollution, personal privacy and affordable, equitable access to nature.

I suppose I'll start off with a few points:

-The purpose of urbanization is to concentrate people and resources for the sake of efficiency. Therefore, I see no justification for design that facilitates private automobile usage. Urban sprawl, noise, light and air pollution, & traffic congestion are all issues that would be seemingly cured by pedestrian and public transport exclusivity.

-I think we should abolish urban street lights. Ambient lighting would be sufficient and would save on energy cost and light pollution.

-On the topic of private property, I do not believe the highest levels of healthy urban design can ever be achieved with the protection and perpetuation of private property. It is private property that facilitates urban blight and the prioritization of monstrosities like stroads, strip malls and parking garages. Just outside of my neighborhood is a main road with numerous abandoned business properties in varying states of decay. If it weren't for private property, I could take a sledgehammer and shovel, demolish the waste and get to work on a community green space. "Indomitable Park", yeah, that's got a nice ring to it.

-Also on the subject of parking garages, I would like to see multi-level parks, especially for sports. For example, 1 level could be basketball courts, the next is a soccer field and so on until you reach a traditional park at the top. This is also beneficial for athletics because you would have shade from the heat and the sun would be out of your eyes.

-Whilst subterranean living is undesirable, it's also efficient and potentially cost effective for low income individuals. Like, we already have subway tunnels, why not expand into free homeless shelters and low cost housing for individuals? I see this as advantageous for students and single individuals who will spend the majority of their time above ground working towards progressing towards starting careers and families.

-And since urban land usage would be optimized, this should also create more availability and affordability for family housing.

So please give your input on all related subjects and I am especially interested in how to increase privacy, access to nature, urban agriculture and public transportation.

[The Holy Therns]

I really hoped this was some kinda avant garde big city baking discussion.

[Grenartia]

Not enough mention of nuclear power, nor of grass and other plants incorporated into the cityscape (and I don't just mean parks, although those are important, too). Also, while I'm onboard with doing away with the capitalist mode of ownership, what would you propose the alternative form of ownership be?

Also, doing away with streetlights is kind of a bad idea, actually, since well-light places are important for people feeling safe.

[Forever Indomitable]

Not enough mention of nuclear power, nor of grass and other plants incorporated into the cityscape (and I don't just mean parks, although those are important, too). Also, while I'm onboard with doing away with the capitalist mode of ownership, what would you propose the alternative form of ownership be?

Feel free to contribute to those subjects, then. I didn't want to make a gargantuan OP. I believe in capitalism without private property, but that's a separate thread I have in the pipeline.

[Nue Cascadia]

Private property is based and better than urbanization tbh.

[Forever Indomitable]

Private property is based and better than urbanization tbh.

Not really, IMO, it's non-meritocratic and there's nothing more sissy than relying on others like the government to designate what is and isn't yours.

Edit: I'm having a self-debate on AnCapism, RN and need to think it over.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

I'm not that fond of urbanization as I think living so densely in cities is inherently unhealthy, especially when the population density is extreme, like NYC.

While I'm not in favor of a Thanos snap or anything like that, I'm not fond of our current population growth either.

[Forever Indomitable]

I'm not that fond of urbanization as I think living so densely in cities is inherently unhealthy, especially when the population density is extreme, like NYC.

While I'm not in favor of a Thanos snap or anything like that, I'm not fond of our current population growth either.

I agree with you to a degree. We certainly shouldn't continue our population growth and urbanism does have its detriments. That being said, I think everyone wanting to live rurally or in small city environments would also be ecologically destructive. You have to lay down more roads, which destroys the environment and disconnects habitats and green spaces. You also have to do more shipping all over due to the spatial inefficiency and specialized services would be costlier. This warrants research.

Alright, I'll stop replying, now. I don't want to monopolize the thread.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

I'm not that fond of urbanization as I think living so densely in cities is inherently unhealthy, especially when the population density is extreme, like NYC.

While I'm not in favor of a Thanos snap or anything like that, I'm not fond of our current population growth either.

I agree with you to a degree. We certainly shouldn't continue our population growth and urbanism does have its detriments. That being said, I think everyone wanting to live rurally or in small city environments would also be ecologically destructive. You have to lay down more roads, which destroys the environment and disconnects habitats and green spaces. You also have to do more shipping all over due to the spatial inefficiency and specialized services would be costlier. This warrants research.

Alright, I'll stop replying, now. I don't want to monopolize the thread.

You're not monopolizing the thread. You're just having discussions with people who have replied to it.

Honestly, while it is true that not everyone can live ruraly or in only small cities, nor would everyone even want to, I think there are a lot more ecologically destructive things we can do. In fact, we're actually doomed ecologically due to climate change, and that has more do with powerful industries than anything else.

[Forever Indomitable]

I agree with you to a degree. We certainly shouldn't continue our population growth and urbanism does have its detriments. That being said, I think everyone wanting to live rurally or in small city environments would also be ecologically destructive. You have to lay down more roads, which destroys the environment and disconnects habitats and green spaces. You also have to do more shipping all over due to the spatial inefficiency and specialized services would be costlier. This warrants research.

Alright, I'll stop replying, now. I don't want to monopolize the thread.

You're not monopolizing the thread. You're just having discussions with people who have replied to it.

Honestly, while it is true that not everyone can live ruraly or in only small cities, nor would everyone even want to, I think there are a lot more ecologically destructive things we can do. In fact, we're actually doomed ecologically due to climate change, and that has more do with powerful industries than anything else.

Climate change, that is yet another can of worms to open. So, what are your critiques of urbanism? Mine are primarily privacy reduction due to design and separation from the wilderness. I'm a huge outdoor person who likes hunting, fishing and camping and those aren't always accessible depending on where I live.

[Ethel mermania]

I have no interest in living under the conditions you propose. A government that forces a people to live a certain way had no business standing

[Forever Indomitable]

I have no interest in living under the conditions you propose. A government that forces a people to live a certain way had no business standing

Government? Force? This is just hypothetical and could apply to any political system, including an anarchist city.

[Ethel mermania]

I have no interest in living under the conditions you propose. A government that forces a people to live a certain way had no business standing

Government? Force? This is just hypothetical and could apply to any political system, including an anarchist city.

How would removing private property function under any political system?

[Forever Indomitable]

Government? Force? This is just hypothetical and could apply to any political system, including an anarchist city.

How would removing private property function under any political system?

Well, this could be a socialist city, or it could hypothetically be in a city with private property, but a city government that enacts compulsory purchase on abandoned property. Or, it could be an AnCap city with a very civic minded cartel in charge, or even a Communist one. At the end of the day, though, if you just let business build ad hoc, inefficiency of design will follow. If they all partner and form a city development council, that would be different. So, I suppose I was partially incorrect. It's possible with private property, but more unlikely. I think I jumped the gun because I'm still trying to figure out where I'm at on the private/public/personal issue. I may edit the OP in light of this in the future after further consideration, but I do understand your complaint and it is one I sympathize with, so I will incorporate that going forward.

[Ethel mermania]

How would removing private property function under any political system?

Well, this could be a socialist city, or it could hypothetically be in a city with private property, but a city government that enacts compulsory purchase on abandoned property. Or, it could be an AnCap city with a very civic minded cartel in charge, or even a Communist one. At the end of the day, though, if you just let business build ad hoc, inefficiency of design will follow. If they all partner and form a city development council, that would be different. So, I suppose I was partially incorrect. It's possible with private property, but more unlikely. I think I jumped the gun because I'm still trying to figure out where I'm at on the private/public/personal issue. I may edit the OP in light of this in the future after further consideration, but I do understand your complaint and it is one I sympathize with, so I will incorporate that going forward.

Some of what you want can be accomplished by a zoning and variance process. But once you start looking at non commercial urban neighborhoods you are talking about individually owned private property, even if that property is a 3 - 10 unit apt. Building

[Juansonia]

-The purpose of urbanization is to concentrate people and resources for the sake of efficiency. Therefore, I see no justification for design that facilitates private automobile usage. Urban sprawl, noise, light and air pollution, & traffic congestion are all issues that would be seemingly cured by pedestrian and public transport exclusivity.

I will assume that you are counting bikes, e-bikes, and e-scooters as pedestrians.

Agree, but the dutch "cars are guests" model has some benefits (collectors and private owners are still free to own and use cars, but the alternatives are so convenient in comparison that only hobby drivers would drive within the city).

-I think we should abolish urban street lights. Ambient lighting would be sufficient and would save on energy cost and light pollution.

Street lights should still be present along throughfares likely to be used constantly(downtowns, tourism centres, etc).

-On the topic of private property, I do not believe the highest levels of healthy urban design can ever be achieved with the protection and perpetuation of private property. It is private property that facilitates urban blight and the prioritization of monstrosities like stroads, strip malls and parking garages.

The monstrosities of stroads, strip malls, and parking garafes are a result of automobile dependancy and prevelance moreso than they are a result of capitalism. It is arguable that good urban design(density, pedestrianisation, etc) are better from both a socialist and an ancap perspective, but subsidies are the reason that sprawl and car dependancy are common. Organisations like Strong Towns and the CATO institute support urbanism from a libright perspective.

-Also on the subject of parking garages, I would like to see multi-level parks, especially for sports. For example, 1 level could be basketball courts, the next is a soccer field and so on until you reach a traditional park at the top. This is also beneficial for athletics because you would have shade from the heat and the sun would be out of your eyes.

The park space being at the top would make public access more inconvenient and make it impossible to use as a throughfare(unless the stadiums were underground). Also, stacking stadium-size open rooms is difficult and expensive.

-Whilst subterranean living is undesirable, it's also efficient and potentially cost effective for low income individuals. Like, we already have subway tunnels, why not expand into free homeless shelters and low cost housing for individuals? I see this as advantageous for students and single individuals who will spend the majority of their time above ground working towards progressing towards starting careers and families.

Did you know that tunnel boring is very expensive compared to other construction? Elon Musk is only able to claim low costs because The Boring Company digs smaller tunnels, which involve moving less material. If you use cut-and-cover excavation, which is basically digging a big trench and adding a roof, you need to get rid of anything at surface level, and it isn't useful for deep structures(which would be necessary to avoid foundation in the way). Expanding basements faces the same problem.

-And since urban land usage would be optimized, this should also create more availability and affordability for family housing.

True, as the land supply would be greater.

So please give your input on all related subjects and I am especially interested in how to increase privacy, access to nature, urban agriculture and public transportation.

In terms of urban agriculture, it's kind of simple - If you have a lot of rural land an hour by train from downtown, farm there and have trains bring farm products to stations in the city, where they can be sold either in the stations or nearby. Alan Fischer did a video which discussed this.

Increasing access to nature is relatively simple - don't have massive suburban sprawl.
Want to make public transportation more efficient than it already is? Don't have SFH-density suburban sprawl.
Want to increase privacy? Mandate soundproofing between residential units.

To be honest, if suburban sprawl already exists, and you don't have the population influx to densify it, you're fucked.

Private property is based and better than urbanization tbh.

Why not both?

[Cannot think of a name]

The biggest problem with the carless advocates is not that we 'need' cars, cars are a shackle around the neck of the working poor and middle class that I'm sure they'd like to be free of, but the carless society folks focus on grrr cars bad people who like cars stupid and don't seem to have a plan to transition in a way that doesn't fuck poor working people right up the ass. The landscaper, the plumber, the carpenters...all the people who use their trucks as they're business can't exactly push a big ol' box of tools and materials on the light rail train. Taking away parking doesn't make people go 'golly, I don't need this car after all', no. It means 'fuck the car I didn't want but have to have is now an extra expense and hassle because some self righteous dill hole decided we had too much of that." Instead of punishing people who have cars they don't want but need, the focus should be on making them not necessary, not inconvenient.

I am all aboard getting people out of cars they never wanted and providing a walkable space. But even in San Francisco before I moved down south it's a car inconvenient city but shit like grocery shopping just by itself was a pain in the ass. Enough that I finally gave up and drove into the city (I lived on Treasure Island, the island in the middle of the Bay Bridge...technically the manmade island next to the island in the middle of the Bay Bridge.) to get groceries because I'd had enough of trying to drag seven plastic bags full of groceries onto a crowded MUNI bus.

And there's little seemingly dumb (maybe to you) shit that has to be accounted for. Just putting aside actual production that takes several vehicles because you're not gonna push 10 tons of lighting gear onto the local shuttle (that's not a made up number, that's a standard size for a grip truck, we even just call it a ten ton.) when I was doing one man band videos for businesses I had too much gear to huff onto public transit. I know because I tried, I had a gig and my Bus broke down. Garage bands. Scoff, but you're shitting on someone's thing that gets them to wake up and trundle through the day. Drums and amps and instruments are heavy and bulky. Going home for Christmas with all the presents for those cousins and aunts you ignore the rest of the year (in my defense, they're kinda terrible).

Not to mention emergency services.

I'm not saying there isn't a solution to these issues, I'm saying until that's what you're addressing first instead of fucking over people who never wanted their car in the first place you're basically gonna sound like a fucking lunatic.

It's not hobbiest and gearheads you have to worry about. We've had 100 years of cars, there will be cars and places to use them. All the much more fun now that jobbers aren't sharing those spaces. By the time that supply of cars and places to play actually dry up you'll have a generation who never knew a world where cars weren't necessary. Don't worry about gear heads. They're not the people you're fucking over.

And look, I'm rooting for you honestly. The fact that I have to hop in my car to do just about anything is a fucking hassle. I love a good road trip but to get basic shit done, that's not a fun road trip. I would love to live in a walkable neighborhood, have a sense of community, not have to pay $50 every few days just for the privilege of movement. But anytime I think I can throw in with that lot I hear a lot of derision and not a lot of ways to make the transition without fucking over poor people, they just sit in circle jerks going "cars bad, car people suck" Cool. Fuck off then. Come back with an actual plan.

[Australian rePublic]

What are you talking about? You can't combine urban and rural areas, they are polar opposites. Urban areas combine a lot of people into small spaces with apartments and small houses, and lots of shops concentrated in small areas. On the other hand, rural areas are big areas where everyone is far apart. Rural areas usually consist of large houses and farming, with small towns containing a few local convinces. You can't combine the two, by polar opposites. Unless you're stating that you want more greenery in urban areas, which yea, I completely agree with, but that does not ruralise urban areas and have them remain urban. Urban areas are hustle and bustle whilst rural areas are quiet. Polar opposites. Ironically, in rural areas you have more car dependency than urban areas due to low population density. The closest you can get to "combining" urban and rural areas is suburbanisation, which is more sitting in the middle of the spectrum, rather than a combination of the two. The ability to plant greenery is dependant on climate
Public transport's feasibility depends on population density. It costs $1 million to build one kilometre of railway, before you pay for trains, stations and maintenance. If there are 1,000,000 people living along each kilometre of the corridor, everyone pays $1, if there is one person living along each kilometre of the corridor, everyone pays $1 million, and that's irrespective of capitalism or socialism. Population density is based on avaliablity of water. Also cities hostile to cars fail to take into account access of ambulance, the disabled (3 of 4 my grandparents were disabled, trust, you need a car to move them anywhere), delivering of anything- from small packages to white goods and access to ambulances, police cars, fire trucks, garbage trucks, herses, etc. Without roads, how do you get goods in and garbage and dead bodies out? Also, many urban areas are home to manufacturing and warehouse hubs, which undisputably need access to roads so that trucks can come in and out. Cars allow for supermarkets which means that you can make one large shopping trip without concern for how you're going to carry everything home, and for busy people, fewer shopping trips are better (unless we revert to the days of housewives) and over-reliance on public transport is awful during a pandemic

[Cannot think of a name]

What are you talking about? You can't combine urban and rural areas,

I'm just gonna stop you there because...who said anything about rural areas?

[Australian rePublic]

What are you talking about? You can't combine urban and rural areas,

I'm just gonna stop you there because...who said anything about rural areas?

It's literally in the OP:

As someone who simultaneously appreciates all that rural & urban life have to offer, I've never seen anything substantially that reconciles the 2. Obviously, you can't have your cake and eat it in every circumstance, but I think we can combine the 2 worlds far more than what we currently have and that's something I'd like to explore, especially in the domains of pollution, personal privacy and affordable, equitable access to nature.

[Cannot think of a name]

I'm just gonna stop you there because...who said anything about rural areas?

It's literally in the OP:

As someone who simultaneously appreciates all that rural & urban life have to offer, I've never seen anything substantially that reconciles the 2. Obviously, you can't have your cake and eat it in every circumstance, but I think we can combine the 2 worlds far more than what we currently have and that's something I'd like to explore, especially in the domains of pollution, personal privacy and affordable, equitable access to nature.

Okay?

[Nilokeras]

The biggest problem with the carless advocates is not that we 'need' cars, cars are a shackle around the neck of the working poor and middle class that I'm sure they'd like to be free of, but the carless society folks focus on grrr cars bad people who like cars stupid and don't seem to have a plan to transition in a way that doesn't fuck poor working people right up the ass. The landscaper, the plumber, the carpenters...all the people who use their trucks as they're business can't exactly push a big ol' box of tools and materials on the light rail train.

I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that work vehicles should somehow be banned.

Taking away parking doesn't make people go 'golly, I don't need this car after all', no. It means 'fuck the car I didn't want but have to have is now an extra expense and hassle because some self righteous dill hole decided we had too much of that." Instead of punishing people who have cars they don't want but need, the focus should be on making them not necessary, not inconvenient.

Peoples' cars are already an extra expense, it's just a sunk cost because our cities are designed in a way that requires them. The one-two punch of removing parking requirements and requiring higher density and transit connection for redevelopment means that it no longer becomes convenient to have a car, but you also don't need to have one in the first place. The average American household owns roughly 2 cars. Assuming two working members of the household, those cars spend a couple of hours every day driving to and from work, and the rest of the time sitting at home or in the parking lot at work, completely idle. In that developmental mode, you don't need to make those trips to and from work, and therefore the main justification for having that vehicle erodes away and it becomes an expense. At that point it becomes cheaper and much more effective to dip into a car sharing app if you ever need to buy a couch or do some renovations or whatnot. Without that incentive, otherwise 'free' parking in new development will continue and it will be incredibly difficult to get people to give up those extraneous vehicles, even with good transit.

[Cannot think of a name]

The biggest problem with the carless advocates is not that we 'need' cars, cars are a shackle around the neck of the working poor and middle class that I'm sure they'd like to be free of, but the carless society folks focus on grrr cars bad people who like cars stupid and don't seem to have a plan to transition in a way that doesn't fuck poor working people right up the ass. The landscaper, the plumber, the carpenters...all the people who use their trucks as they're business can't exactly push a big ol' box of tools and materials on the light rail train.

I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that work vehicles should somehow be banned.

Taking away parking doesn't make people go 'golly, I don't need this car after all', no. It means 'fuck the car I didn't want but have to have is now an extra expense and hassle because some self righteous dill hole decided we had too much of that." Instead of punishing people who have cars they don't want but need, the focus should be on making them not necessary, not inconvenient.

Peoples' cars are already an extra expense, it's just a sunk cost because our cities are designed in a way that requires them. The one-two punch of removing parking requirements and requiring higher density and transit connection for redevelopment means that it no longer becomes convenient to have a car, but you also don't need to have one in the first place. The average American household owns roughly 2 cars. Assuming two working members of the household, those cars spend a couple of hours every day driving to and from work, and the rest of the time sitting at home or in the parking lot at work, completely idle. In that developmental mode, you don't need to make those trips to and from work, and therefore the main justification for having that vehicle erodes away and it becomes an expense. At that point it becomes cheaper and much more effective to dip into a car sharing app if you ever need to buy a couch or do some renovations or whatnot. Without that incentive, otherwise 'free' parking in new development will continue and it will be incredibly difficult to get people to give up those extraneous vehicles, even with good transit.

Yeah dude, I've heard the pitch. But you lost it when you said "make it inconvenient"

That's just 'fuck the poor' with a self righteous attitude. You make the infrastructure first, you make it possible for them to not have a car first, then you can start getting rid of parking. Because I see a lot of energy reducing parking but not a lot of energy on the infrastructure to provide an alternative.

So yeah. Your plan is 'fuck poor people.' You can pat yourself on the back about it, but that's what it is. Make it possible first, don't make it hard on the people who have to wait for you to get through your fucking 1 2 punch plan. Solve people's problems, don't make them worst because you found a pet sticking point in urban design. Unless you're doing that, pass.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I have no interest in living under the conditions you propose. A government that forces a people to live a certain way had no business standing

Literally every government on the face of the earth forces people to live certain ways.

[Juansonia]

The biggest problem with the carless advocates is not that we 'need' cars, cars are a shackle around the neck of the working poor and middle class that I'm sure they'd like to be free of, but the carless society folks focus on grrr cars bad people who like cars stupid and don't seem to have a plan to transition in a way that doesn't fuck poor working people right up the ass. The landscaper, the plumber, the carpenters...all the people who use their trucks as they're business can't exactly push a big ol' box of tools and materials on the light rail train.

Nobody is seriously arguing for the banning of work trucks and work vans. However, there is a point that chimney sweepers, for example, can carry their equipment on a modified bicycle with relative ease.

Taking away parking doesn't make people go 'golly, I don't need this car after all', no. It means 'fuck the car I didn't want but have to have is now an extra expense and hassle because some self righteous dill hole decided we had too much of that." Instead of punishing people who have cars they don't want but need, the focus should be on making them not necessary, not inconvenient.

Removing parking allows that land to be used for other uses, and inconveniencing already-subsidised car use is necessary to reduce the amount of driving by those who can switch to alternatives, freeing up car infrastructure for those who need it.

I am all aboard getting people out of cars they never wanted and providing a walkable space. But even in San Francisco before I moved down south it's a car inconvenient city but shit like grocery shopping just by itself was a pain in the ass. Enough that I finally gave up and drove into the city to get groceries because I'd had enough of trying to drag seven plastic bags full of groceries onto a crowded MUNI bus.

How frequent were your grocery trips at this time? Going to a shop on your route daily reduces the load you have to worry about, and carrying your own basket reduces the hassle.

Not to mention emergency services.

Not to mention strawmen.

It's not hobbiest and gearheads you have to worry about.

And it's not them that we do worry about either. The problem is the politicians and those who, despite the alternatives, drive as a matter of status or false necessity.

And look, I'm rooting for you honestly. The fact that I have to hop in my car to do just about anything is a fucking hassle. I love a good road trip but to get basic shit done, that's not a fun road trip. I would love to live in a walkable neighborhood, have a sense of community, not have to pay $50 every few days just for the privilege of movement. But anytime I think I can throw in with that lot I hear a lot of derision and not a lot of ways to make the transition without fucking over poor people, they just sit in circle jerks going "cars bad, car people suck" Cool. Fuck off then. Come back with an actual plan.

To be honest, it's kind of hard to have a plan when simply asking for good bike lanes gets you labeled a public menace. We daydream about a utopia without an implementation plan because the American political-economic environment makes even the slightest of victories improbable to achieve.

Peoples' cars are already an extra expense, it's just a sunk cost because our cities are designed in a way that requires them. The one-two punch of removing parking requirements and requiring higher density and transit connection for redevelopment means that it no longer becomes convenient to have a car, but you also don't need to have one in the first place. The average American household owns roughly 2 cars. Assuming two working members of the household, those cars spend a couple of hours every day driving to and from work, and the rest of the time sitting at home or in the parking lot at work, completely idle. In that developmental mode, you don't need to make those trips to and from work, and therefore the main justification for having that vehicle erodes away and it becomes an expense. At that point it becomes cheaper and much more effective to dip into a car sharing app if you ever need to buy a couch or do some renovations or whatnot. Without that incentive, otherwise 'free' parking in new development will continue and it will be incredibly difficult to get people to give up those extraneous vehicles, even with good transit.

Yeah dude, I've heard the pitch. But you lost it when you said "make it inconvenient"

That's just 'fuck the poor' with a self righteous attitude. You make the infrastructure first, you make it possible for them to not have a car first, then you can start getting rid of parking. Because I see a lot of energy reducing parking but not a lot of energy on the infrastructure to provide an alternative.

So yeah. Your plan is 'fuck poor people.' You can pat yourself on the back about it, but that's what it is. Make it possible first, don't make it hard on the people who have to wait for you to get through your fucking 1 2 punch plan. Solve people's problems, don't make them worst because you found a pet sticking point in urban design. Unless you're doing that, pass.

It's less of a one-two punch and more like cutting away at automobile prevelance from both sides - make it less convenient to drive, little by little, as you make it easier to get around without driving, little by little. This results in change being gradual, thereby softening the "1-2 punch" while still landing the hits necessary. Making driving less convenient draws people to the alternatives, and improving the alternatives makes it less harmful and less difficult to inconvenience drivers. There will always be measures that do both(such as pedestrianising a stretch of street), and such changes are only viable because they aren't done to the entire city overnight.

I have no interest in living under the conditions you propose. A government that forces a people to live a certain way had no business standing

Literally every government on the face of the earth forces people to live certain ways.

I think he's an ancap.