Green Urban Design MegaBread

[Kerwa]

People say that if they had a Tardis they would go back in time and strangle Hitler in his cradle. I’d do that too, but I’d also strangle Bob Caro. It would save so many pointless arguments.

[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.

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.

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.

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

I think he's an ancap.

Making the alternatives convenient drives people to the alternatives and making their lives hard drives them to vote those people out of office. You guys are still just finding glossy ways to say 'fuck the poor.' Maybe if you had $2000 worth of parking tickets for a car you can't get rid of because some self righteous snob decided to make it 'inconvenient', but unless it's you suffering then it's all 'part of the plan.'

[Ethel mermania]

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.

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.

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

I think he's an ancap.

Goldwater republican

[Ethel mermania]

People say that if they had a Tardis they would go back in time and strangle Hitler in his cradle. I’d do that to, but I’d also strangle Bob Caro. It would save so many pointless arguments.

But I want to read his Johnson books. They are on the list.

[Forever Indomitable]

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

I'm doing a little reading and it seems that mixed use zoning is more economically and infrastructurally advantageous in the long run. So, I suppose that begs the question: should we be (hypothetically) reorienting ourselves towards virtual mixed exclusivity? If that is in fact the case, I may have to give my decentralization proclivity a cold shower. Because where I'm at right now is that efficiency, economy & health should be the foundation that urbanism should be built on, not an unwavering commitment to private property and development.

https://www.korteco.com/construction-in ... velopment/
https://sustainablecitycode.org/brief/m ... re%20items

[Ethel mermania]

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

I'm doing a little reading and it seems that mixed use zoning is more economically and infrastructurally advantageous in the long run. So, I suppose that begs the question: should we be (hypothetically) reorienting ourselves towards virtual mixed exclusivity? If that is in fact the case, I may have to give my decentralization proclivity a cold shower. Because where I'm at right now is that efficiency, economy & health should be the foundation that urbanism should be built on, not an unwavering commitment to private property and development.

https://www.korteco.com/construction-in ... velopment/
https://sustainablecitycode.org/brief/m ... re%20items

I like private property. I have 0 interest in a government owned housing model, in the states we get the NYCHA, a model of poor management, criminal neglect and unsatisfied tenants

https://www.cityandstateny.com/opinion/ ... it/178185/

[El Lazaro]

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

What’s the alternative? Sitting?

[Sordhau]

-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.

Blessed. Public transportation is preferable to private automobile ownership.

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

Cursed. Well-lit areas see a regular dipping in crime. What we need is more energy-efficient lighting.

-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.

Blessed. Private property is the epitome of wasteful.

"Indomitable Park", yeah, that's got a nice ring to it.

Cursed. Anybody who names things after themselves should automatically lose the right to name things.

-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.

Blessed. Building vertically is a far more efficient usage of space.

-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.

Blursed. A population of mole people/basement dwellers is wild in both a good and bad way.

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

Blessed. But let's take it one step further and just make housing free.

[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

What’s the alternative? Sitting?

Reclining

[El Lazaro]

What’s the alternative? Sitting?

Reclining

On behalf of all governments worldwide, you have a deal on the condition that the jaywalking stops.

And the taxpayer is covering the cost of the motorized recliner wheelchairs.

[Heloin]

What’s the alternative? Sitting?

Reclining

With a nice beer.

[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.

Blessed. Public transportation is preferable to private automobile ownership.

Of course, that's assuming that bicycles and such count as pedestrians for the purposes of not being cars. Bikes are just too optimised to not be present in a carfree city.

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

Cursed. Well-lit areas see a regular dipping in crime. What we need is more energy-efficient lighting.

There also is a point about light pollution, but using lights designed to minimise such would be a good solution.

-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.

Blessed. Private property is the epitome of wasteful.

While I disagree on this point(as I explained in my post), it's nowhere near a deal brealer.

"Indomitable Park", yeah, that's got a nice ring to it.

Cursed. Anybody who names things after themselves should automatically lose the right to name things.

I mean, It's better than naming a park "Pog Frog".

-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.

Blessed. Building vertically is a far more efficient usage of space.

I'd consider it cursed, as it makes the park harder to access(thereby separating it from the community) and large open spaces are hard to stack unless you add columns and shit to the middle(which would ruin the field). I also addressed this in a previous post.

-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.

Blursed. A population of mole people/basement dwellers is wild in both a good and bad way.

And that's before you even factor in how inefficent it is to hollow out underground spaces. TBMs are the most efficent method of underground excavation(excluding cut-and-cover and similar methods), but they are still prohibitively slow, inefficent, and expensive. Worse, curves and larger rooms must be excavated by more tarditional methods, such as drill-and-blast or semi-manual digging.

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

Blessed. But let's take it one step further and just make housing free.

If we're getting rid of private land ownership, why not?

topic for a new post: what is the best way to minimise the harm caused by existing suburbs?

[Neutraligon]

Blessed. Public transportation is preferable to private automobile ownership.

Of course, that's assuming that bicycles and such count as pedestrians for the purposes of not being cars. Bikes are just too optimised to not be present in a carfree city.

Cursed. Well-lit areas see a regular dipping in crime. What we need is more energy-efficient lighting.

There also is a point about light pollution, but using lights designed to minimise such would be a good solution.

Blessed. Private property is the epitome of wasteful.

While I disagree on this point(as I explained in my post), it's nowhere near a deal brealer.

Cursed. Anybody who names things after themselves should automatically lose the right to name things.

I mean, It's better than naming a park "Pog Frog".

Blessed. Building vertically is a far more efficient usage of space.

I'd consider it cursed, as it makes the park harder to access(thereby separating it from the community) and large open spaces are hard to stack unless you add columns and shit to the middle(which would ruin the field). I also addressed this in a previous post.

Blursed. A population of mole people/basement dwellers is wild in both a good and bad way.

And that's before you even factor in how inefficent it is to hollow out underground spaces. TBMs are the most efficent method of underground excavation(excluding cut-and-cover and similar methods), but they are still prohibitively slow, inefficent, and expensive. Worse, curves and larger rooms must be excavated by more tarditional methods, such as drill-and-blast or semi-manual digging.

Blessed. But let's take it one step further and just make housing free.

If we're getting rid of private land ownership, why not?

topic for a new post: what is the best way to minimise the harm caused by existing suburbs?

I would say start looking at rezoning so that small multifamily housing units and small mom and pop shops are allowed. Also look into connecting roads with sidewalks so bikes and pedestrians can get from point a to point b more easily.

[Sordhau]

Of course, that's assuming that bicycles and such count as pedestrians for the purposes of not being cars. Bikes are just too optimised to not be present in a carfree city.There also is a point about light pollution, but using lights designed to minimise such would be a good solution.While I disagree on this point(as I explained in my post), it's nowhere near a deal brealer.I mean, It's better than naming a park "Pog Frog".I'd consider it cursed, as it makes the park harder to access(thereby separating it from the community) and large open spaces are hard to stack unless you add columns and shit to the middle(which would ruin the field). I also addressed this in a previous post.And that's before you even factor in how inefficent it is to hollow out underground spaces. TBMs are the most efficent method of underground excavation(excluding cut-and-cover and similar methods), but they are still prohibitively slow, inefficent, and expensive. Worse, curves and larger rooms must be excavated by more tarditional methods, such as drill-and-blast or semi-manual digging. If we're getting rid of private land ownership, why not?

topic for a new post: what is the best way to minimise the harm caused by existing suburbs?

I would say start looking at rezoning so that small multifamily housing units and small mom and pop shops are allowed. Also look into connecting roads with sidewalks so bikes and pedestrians can get from point a to point b more easily.

Mostly based, except for the 'mom and pop' shops part. Such businesses should be actively persecuted through a mass campaign of organized suppression in order to eliminate the influence of the petty bourgeois through overpriced goods and underpaid labor.

[Forever Indomitable]

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

Yes, of course.

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'm gonna check this out.

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

You think ambient lighting wouldn't be enough? Those areas are going to be the most lit up.

The monstrosities of stroads, strip malls, and parking garages 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.

True.

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.

I just find the idea of a park with an elevated view to be appealing, at least on occasion. We could also use a stacked pyramid. Covered in vegetation, I think that would look quite striking and some shutters to keep rain out, voila.

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.

I did and I'm trying to think of ways to optimize the process. Underground underutilization just seems like such a waste to me. IDK if I'm trying to get blood from a stone, but it's a topic I've always been interested in. We use verticality to increase density, but only in a single direction. "It agitates me".

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.

I'm going to check that video. What would be the best arrangement for this, then? I envision a honeycomb, with train and road arteries leading to a city in the center (geography permitting). So, you would have city, nature, and then the agricultural perimeter.

Increasing access to nature is relatively simple - don't have massive suburban sprawl.

There's that, but I am greedy. I want more immediacy. I want vegetation covered buildings and abundant trees. In fact, I wish we had giant trees we could build and live on, like the Wookies on Kashyyk .

Want to increase privacy? Mandate soundproofing between residential units.

I've considered that, but I also want to think about design that makes you see less people.

[The Two Jerseys]

I'll keep my single-family home on a plot of grass with a car in the driveway, thank you very much.

[Ankoz]

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

Yes, of course.

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'm gonna check this out.

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

You think ambient lighting wouldn't be enough? Those areas are going to be the most lit up.

The monstrosities of stroads, strip malls, and parking garages 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.

True.

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.

I just find the idea of a park with an elevated view to be appealing, at least on occasion. We could also use a stacked pyramid. Covered in vegetation, I think that would look quite striking and some shutters to keep rain out, voila.

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.

I did and I'm trying to think of ways to optimize the process. Underground underutilization just seems like such a waste to me. IDK if I'm trying to get blood from a stone, but it's a topic I've always been interested in. We use verticality to increase density, but only in a single direction. "It agitates me".

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.

I'm going to check that video. What would be the best arrangement for this, then? I envision a honeycomb, with train and road arteries leading to a city in the center (geography permitting). So, you would have city, nature, and then the agricultural perimeter.

Increasing access to nature is relatively simple - don't have massive suburban sprawl.

There's that, but I am greedy. I want more immediacy. I want vegetation covered buildings and abundant trees. In fact, I wish we had giant trees we could build and live on, like the Wookies on Kashyyk .

Want to increase privacy? Mandate soundproofing between residential units.

I've considered that, but I also want to think about design that makes you see less people.

By a stacked pyramid I assume you mean something like the ziggurat garden from Cities: Skylines?

[Forever Indomitable]

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.

You're right and I did get excessive tunnel vision in the pursuit of efficiency. I think Juansonia brings up a good point with the "Cars As Guests" model where cyclists share the street with autos, but take priority over them. I also forgot to mention that I had envisioned roads for emergency services like ambulances and obviously that can be expanded to commercial vehicles. It's apparent that automobiles can't be excluded from cities, but the problem is that there seems to be a severe either/or issue in design: you build streets that facilitate autos and the walkability gets decimated, or you prioritize pedestrians and likewise drivability plummets. I like the Cars are Guests idea, but that becomes an issue with emergency services. I think I'll look at a list of the most walkable cities and checkout their layouts on Gmaps.

[San Lumen]

You have truly wacky takes.

Your proposal is impractical and absurd. You clearly have no understand of how urban planning works. It is impossible to combine urban and rural as they are complete opposites.

[Forever Indomitable]

You have truly wacky takes.

Your proposal is impractical and absurd. You clearly have no understand of how urban planning works. It is impossible to combine urban and rural as they are complete opposites.

Urban planning has always interested me, but I never got around to learning about it. I could've done research beforehand, but I thought a thread would be more fun and present me with a variety of topics to dip my toes in to. I've lived in both urban and rural-ish settings and I just think it's interesting to examine what they each have to offer and to take inspiration from both and see when, where and how various facets of each could possibly be applied. I'm not a city planner IRL, so don't sweat the daydreaming .

[San Lumen]

You have truly wacky takes.

Your proposal is impractical and absurd. You clearly have no understand of how urban planning works. It is impossible to combine urban and rural as they are complete opposites.

Urban planning has always interested me, but I never got around to learning about it. I could've done research beforehand, but I thought a thread would be more fun and present me with a variety of topics to dip my toes in to. I've lived in both urban and rural-ish settings and I just think it's interesting to examine what they each have to offer and to take inspiration from both and see when, where and how various facets of each could possibly be applied. I'm not a city planner IRL, so don't sweat the daydreaming .

Try learning about a topic before you propose something absurd and impractical.

[Forever Indomitable]

Urban planning has always interested me, but I never got around to learning about it. I could've done research beforehand, but I thought a thread would be more fun and present me with a variety of topics to dip my toes in to. I've lived in both urban and rural-ish settings and I just think it's interesting to examine what they each have to offer and to take inspiration from both and see when, where and how various facets of each could possibly be applied. I'm not a city planner IRL, so don't sweat the daydreaming .

Try learning about a topic before you propose something absurd and impractical.

Eh, I thought it'd be more fun to bend over and invite NSG to bust my urban planning cherry.

[Wheath]

This sounds extremely constricting and perhaps authoritarian/dystopian. Also, sounds like you'd need a lot of engineering to keep fears of collapse... throughout the city (especially in earthquake or storm-heavy nations)... at bay (plus the psychological impact).

I would think it's easier to convince people to have less kids, but obviously that doesn't work either.

[Kerwa]

Urban planning has always interested me, but I never got around to learning about it. I could've done research beforehand, but I thought a thread would be more fun and present me with a variety of topics to dip my toes in to. I've lived in both urban and rural-ish settings and I just think it's interesting to examine what they each have to offer and to take inspiration from both and see when, where and how various facets of each could possibly be applied. I'm not a city planner IRL, so don't sweat the daydreaming .

Try learning about a topic before you propose something absurd and impractical.

Why? Nobody else bothers. Urban planning is filled with disgruntled amateurs and failed civil engineers, why shouldn’t they (FI) have a say?

[Ethel mermania]

Urban planning has always interested me, but I never got around to learning about it. I could've done research beforehand, but I thought a thread would be more fun and present me with a variety of topics to dip my toes in to. I've lived in both urban and rural-ish settings and I just think it's interesting to examine what they each have to offer and to take inspiration from both and see when, where and how various facets of each could possibly be applied. I'm not a city planner IRL, so don't sweat the daydreaming .

Try learning about a topic before you propose something absurd and impractical.

Seriously? From you of all people?


forever Indomitable post what you want its ok. The group will tell you what they think of your OP, and even while I disagree with you, this is a debate forum, the point is to discuss. Please feel free to post topics to debate. Its one way to learn about something that interests you.