
To build the cities of the future, we must get out of our cars - jseliger
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/04/to-build-cities-of-the-future-stop-driving-cars
======
Tepix
Not exactly rocket science. Many cities around the world have figured it out
already. To me it seems that the US went to the other extreme and is only
slowly turning around.

I remember reading "Das neue Universum"² in the early 80s where they proposed
large skyscrapers connected by tubes. No cars in sight.

Oh and don't miss "Das Neue Universum Volume 84 (1967)":
[http://klausbuergle.de/buergle_verkehr1.htm](http://klausbuergle.de/buergle_verkehr1.htm)
-

Click on the bottom left image - looks a lot like Hyperloop, doesn't it? The
text even mentions that the tubes contain a vacuum!

\--

²
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Neue_Universum](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Neue_Universum)

~~~
mtberatwork
> the US went to the other extreme and is only slowly turning around.

US car manufacturers are doubling down on large trucks and SUVs and the
current administration continues to thwart progress on tackling climate change
and other societal concerns. I would say the US, at least on a macro level, is
still on the "other extreme" path.

~~~
ptero
> US car manufacturers are doubling down on large trucks and SUVs

Manufacturers are building lots of SUVs because this is what people in the US
_prefer_ to buy. If manufacturers build tons of subcompacts instead they would
have to drop prices and probably sell those subcompacts at a loss.

If you wanted to sell more small cars instead you should convince _consumers_
to buy them (e.g., via end user incentives), which would make it profitable
for car companies to build lots of them.

~~~
amalcon
Is this really surprising? The benefits of driving a large vehicle are all
internal (comfort, safety of vehicle occupants, cargo capacity, range between
fueling). The costs, however, are mostly external (road maintenance,
emissions, safety of non occupants, space consumed for parking).

You'd need to substantially incentivize smaller vehicles to overcome these
things, but we actually incentivize larger vehicles (through looser emissions
standards).

~~~
ajmurmann
I think you really touch on the core problem. All the negative externalities
are eaten up by the community. The obvious solution is to stop subsidizing
cars and instead start teaching the negative externalities. Ready first steps:
1\. massively increase gasoline tax. 2\. Get rid of all street parking.

I personally would prefer to just ban all combustion engines, but people seem
to think I'm insane when I propose this.

~~~
TomMarius
Banning all combustion engines is too extreme, see this chart for reasoning:
[https://image.slidesharecdn.com/13hja01motivepowermst-141217...](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/13hja01motivepowermst-141217111900-conversion-
gate02/95/13-hja-01-motive-power-mst-17-638.jpg?cb=1418890147)

------
betandr
We really do have to radically re-think our cities but the biggest issues
aren't going to be practical but emotional. In London parents drive their
children around in 4x4s, knowing that their vehicle causes the pollution that
is affecting their own children's health. I'm not sure how you even start to
get around that but to some extent you will never persuade everybody to reduce
their damaging behaviour. You need to enable people to travel in non-damaging
ways; cycling and walking primary. That should be the first priority, although
fighting the ingrained car culture will be the hardest battle.

~~~
educationdata
No. Car is not just the "culture", car serves our need. If you are young
without kids, it may not make much difference for you to ride a car, or take a
bus, or a train, subway, etc. But if you have a family, it makes a huge pain
without your own vehicle.

If the city of future requires families to abandon their own vehicle, it is
not the correct city of future. Just design a better one.

~~~
ak217
Millions of people around America get their kids around the neighborhood just
fine without a car. If you continue to insist that cities be designed around
your limited vision, then you should be forced to pay for the full
externalities of your car-centric lifestyle. The rest of us are tired of
paying so you can waste our resources.

~~~
wozniacki
You need to cite a source for that.

Infact if anything, despite the very very recent free-range kids movement to
liberate kids from the dependence on parents, its the opposite - kids get
ferried everywhere, from high school sports practice sessions to neighborhood
store visits.

~~~
ak217
[http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pdf/Community_SRTSfederal_Trends....](http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pdf/Community_SRTSfederal_Trends.pdf)

------
scriptkiddy
I live in Los Angeles; The Mecca for the automobile. Back in the early 20th
century, the city was trying really hard to invest in public transportation
through the use of electric street cars. Unfortunately, car manufacturers were
able to weasel their way into the pockets of the city planners and put a stop
to that.

We have a problem in Los Angeles. And that problem is that it's almost
impossible to live close to where you work. Most white collar jobs here
require an hour or longer of commuting time. Sure, it's possible to find jobs
closer to your home, but when you are a professional in a specific field, your
choices are restricted.

I live in North Hollywood, which is just West of Burbank in the San Fernando
Valley. It's actually miles from Hollywood despite what the name may suggest.

I work in El Segundo. Before that, I worked in Culver city.

It would take me 4 or more hours and several metro -> bus -> metro transfers
to get to work without driving.

The city is working on several new Metro lines and Bus only lanes, but it
doesn't solve the problem of everyone being so spread out.

~~~
0xffff2
Do you own your house? I'm curious because you speak as if "where you live" is
an immutable fact, whereas my solution would to be to move closer to work.

~~~
Mister_Snuggles
For some people, moving isn't very easy. If you have kids there's the whole
issue with switching schools, etc. If you tend to switch jobs frequently it
may be a case of just getting settled and now you're in a new job.

Moving is also, for many people, a gigantic pain that they'd rather avoid,
even if it means suffering through traffic every day.

~~~
0xffff2
The original comment says "it's almost impossible to live close to where you
work". None of the things you mention come anywhere near the bar of "nearly
impossible" in my book. As far as I can tell, it's completely possible.

------
ngngngng
I'm not sure these articles are good for my mental health. I live in Utah
Valley, which has the worst air quality in the United States. I'm on the train
right now as I type this, it takes twice as long for me to get to work this
way but i'm trying to increase train usage. People here are just so invested
in making their hour long commutes with their gigantic trucks. Trucks are
ridiculously expensive even before you factor in the prohibitive cost of gas
and maintenance for them. It still doesn't seem to dissuade anyone.

I'm considering protesting for more environmentally friendly city designs and
transportation decisions. I could find an extremely congested intersection and
protest by just pressing the walk sign and marching back and forth. Annoying,
but probably effective at getting my message seen. I imagine that's the kind
of protest that would get me arrested for being a nuisance.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Utah Valley (and Salt Lake Valley) trap pollution. There's no getting away
from that. But the worst air quality in the US? _After_ Geneva Steel closed?
Worse than, say, San Bernardino, where the wind tends to trap LA's smog? I'm
kind of skeptical. (Or do you have hard data, which I admit that I don't?)

~~~
bbradley406
It can change depending on the season and weather, but it is seriously bad and
hit #1 for a day in 2017. [1]

The geography does trap the pollution, but having refineries and mining
operations just north of the city doesn't help. There are also loads of 18
wheel trucks coming through, since SLC is a bit of a hub area in terms of
highways.

Despite the city being pretty walk-able with decent (by US standards) transit,
lots of people have at least one large 4x4 vehicle to get up into the canyons.
It hurts to see since I understand the appeal of outdoors activities, but this
way of approaching them will degrade and ruin the outdoors long term.

[1] [https://kutv.com/news/local/salt-lake-city-has-the-worst-
air...](https://kutv.com/news/local/salt-lake-city-has-the-worst-air-quality-
in-the-nation)

------
bluewater
Cool little post by Mr Money Mustache about a twitter post he put out
describing a future city without cars. Media picked it up as reality, pretty
funny stuff.

[http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2019/02/27/how-to-create-
real...](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2019/02/27/how-to-create-reality/)

------
JDiculous
I see it less about eliminating cars (though that would be awesome if
possible) and more about giving people alternatives (public transit, walking),
which you don't have in American suburbia.

Much of the rest of the world has already figured it out. I'm in a "suburb" of
Seoul right now. I can get to Gangnam in 30 minutes door to door via the
subway (subway ticket is ~$2 each way). I'm a short walk (< 5 mins) to grocery
stores, restaurants, coffee shops, etc. It's all apartments here, which is why
everything is so walkable. Of course this means less space than a house, but
it's quiet and there are plenty of parks/green and a big lake nearby (5-10
minute walk).

Meanwhile back at my parents' house in the suburbs of Washington DC, the
closest commercial business I can walk to is a gas station 20 minutes away,
next to an ugly car-ridden highway. The nearest grocery store would require
crossing that wide road and walking an additional 10-15 minutes through a
massive parking lot. There is no viable public transport - if I want to take
the subway into DC I need to drive 15 minutes to the nearest subway station
(subway ticket is ~$5-8 I believe). Although my immediate neighborhood is very
nice in the sense that there are a lot of trees, there actually aren't any
parks (unless you count the local elementary school) or businesses of any
form, including simple convenience stores (something I noticed is commonplace
in most of the rest of the world).

Everytime I'm at my parents' house I'm completely dependent on having a
vehicle to do anything, and bored out of my mind within about a week because
it's extraordinarily isolating. I get very little exercise because I end up
just staying in my house all day because there's little to do. On the other
hand I can be in "city"-like suburbs like the one I'm in now and not feel
lonely even if I don't talk to anyone because I can just step outside and
there are people everywhere, or go walk to one of the million coffee shops
nearby that are always packed with people hanging out.

I despise American suburbs. Who decided that the "American Dream" is owning a
single-family home in the suburbs? I guess I'm just not enough of a hermit to
enjoy that lifestyle.

------
ocdtrekkie
This is one of the reasons the self-driving craze in tech is so silly: We have
vehicles you can commute in and not drive called public transit. Self-driving
cars is desire for public transit that doesn't have your rich self sitting
next to a poor person on the way to work.

~~~
syshum
Or you know people that value their time...

For me to use Public Transport here would increase my commute time to work by
order of magnitude, not to mention all the places I go weekly that is not on a
public transit stop or would require multiple line hops and be many times more
time consuming than if I just drove directly their in my own personal vehicle

Public transport only works in area with High Population Density

~~~
Sacho
I can't imagine how bad public transport must be to increase your commute time
by an _order of magnitude_. I use public transport precisely because I value
my time - it takes longer(around x1.5) than using a car, but that time is
relaxing, can be used to read a book, listen to a podcast or just order your
thoughts. Time spent in a car is stressful and requires your focus and
attention.

I'm not sure what kind of population density you need to make public transport
workable, but it's a blessing when you have it available. There's some sample
math at the end of this
article([https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/density/](https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/density/)
\- technical appendix) which concludes that you don't really need that high a
density(it focuses on Melbourne), as long as people actually prefer to use the
public transport service over their own cars.

~~~
bluGill
It depends on local details. In most large cities public transit assumes you
live in the suburbs and work downtown. Jobs are moving to the suburbs, to get
to them means a ride downtown, and then a ride back out. I know of people with
a 4 mile commute who drive (why they don't bike is a good question) because
they bus ride would be 3 hours each way.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
As a Chicago native, I can definitely see a case for like a north-south
suburban Metra line, being potentially amazing. But our rail system primarily
piggybacks on freight lines which all are concerned about going to/from
Chicago proper.

I don't feel buses are nearly as productive because of traffic. There are some
nifty routes around Chicago where buses are allowed to drive the shoulder in
traffic jams, and hence, do better than cars on travel time, but the north-
south suburban expressway doesn't have that arrangement.

------
bitxbit
I’d argue that cities will shrink over time. It’s going to become easier for
people to live in rural areas. I don’t think there is some magic formula to
manage the inevitable congestion (not just traffic).

Edit: It’d also be interesting to see the environmental impact of mega cities.
And what about cities like Portland where they have put in a lot effort to
plan around growth? Is it working?

~~~
adwww
It's not happening though.

My parents live in a beautiful part of the rural UK and have super-fast fibre
to the premises internet, next day Amazon prime available, online food
shopping from 4 or so supermarkets locally, etc.

Basically everything you'd think you'd need to live away from the city, but
still the area is depopulating rapidly.

Younger people don't want a life of car dependancy and social isolation.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
> Younger people don't want a life of car dependency and social isolation.

When I moved from my families acreage that was 10 minutes out of town it
wasn't because of social isolation or car dependence - it was because I
couldn't get an post-secondary education in my community. Even if I hadn't
gone for an education, there was a ton more employment opportunities in the
urban centre. I stayed in the city because "junior software developer" is a
super hard sell in a town of 2,500. Now that I've more experience I could
probably swing the "work remote" thing, but it just wasn't an option starting
my career.

~~~
adwww
Ah yeah I didn't mention employment which is clearly the biggest barrier at
the moment to living outside urban areas, as I assumed the parent comment was
suggesting remote working is what will enable moving away from big cities.

------
makerofspoons
If our species is to survive this century we have to get out of our cars.
There is no way to sustainably build billions of electric cars- we need to
consider that our existing ICE fleet needs to simply be retired and not
replaced. Cars are one of the ultimate symbols of the consumption that needs
to end if we are to address climate change. Between the asphalt and concrete
needed to build infrastructure for them to the plastics, rubber, and metals
used to manufacture them cars are rolling ecological disasters.

~~~
rootusrootus
Any solution which requires people to give up convenience in the name of
saving the environment is dead on arrival. This is human nature, we have never
before managed to conserve our way out of a problem, we _innovate_ our way out
of it or we will die trying.

~~~
darepublic
I wonder if we can get people out of cars unless cities themselves are
completely redesigned. We committed ourselves to a harmful design pattern but
unfortunately everyone is heavily invested in it. Need to have a city design
that will work, and then draw up a series of implementation steps to move
existing cities to the new design. Would require a ton of central
planning/control though, doubtful we could pull it off unless things got
drastically worse to motivate people.

------
jalessio
Hi HN! I'm the Director of Engineering at UrbanFootprint
([https://urbanfootprint.com/](https://urbanfootprint.com/)), one of the
companies featured in the National Geographic article. Peter Calthorpe is a
cofounder of the company. The El Camino corridor is highlighted at the
beginning of the National Geographic article. If you want to dig into more
details on that please take a look at our blog post on the topic from last
year ([https://urbanfootprint.com/can-one-street-solve-the-san-
fran...](https://urbanfootprint.com/can-one-street-solve-the-san-francisco-
bay-area-housing-crisis/)).

At UrbanFootprint, we provide data and tools for urban planners to assess and
compare the impacts of land use and transportation decisions. A basic use case
is a city updating its General Plan, which would start with a forecast of how
much population growth is anticipated / needs to be accommodated. A planner
then needs to assess where new residents will live, work, shop, and play.
Perhaps even more essential, how are people going to travel between all of
these activities? Will the new growth be auto-dependent, transit-focused,
walkable? Is any of the existing or planned development in hazard areas such
as flood of wildfire? What are the energy and water use impacts of the plans?

We’re using Python and Postgres/PostGIS on the backend to answer these
questions and a React SPA to serve it up and make it interactive in a browser.
It's a lot of fun getting our hands dirty with data describing the physical
world in which we live in now, in addition to modeling the future of cities.

If this type of work interests you please get in touch - email me at
hn@urbanfootprint.com. I'm always interested in hearing from folks who want to
use technology to improve cities.

------
Shivetya
Cars are not the cause of the issue with cities, cars are symptom of bad
zoning and regulation which more times than not prevents owners of property
from doing what they want.

when every new building requires effectively bring special interest groups,
politicians, regulatory boards, and unions, their due is it a surprise cities
are not getting better.

they are serving a politically connected elite, not the people who live there
or want to live there.

~~~
michaelt
In cites like Los Angeles, cars are part of a feedback loop which makes them
both symptom _and_ cause.

Los Angeles is low-density partly because it spends lots of land on roads and
parking lots. It needs lots of roads and parking lots because everyone drives.
And everyone drives because the city is low density.

~~~
asdff
The solution is to bite the bullet and build the rails. They didn't build
highways to already existing suburbs in the valley or where wildfires have
been roasting for 100s of years; those things popped up because the land was
empty and the highway made building possible. If you build the rails and zone
the area by the rail for density, a developer looking to drop a 15 story
apartment is going to want to put it by the rail. Even better if you nix the
rule about having to build parking if they build close enough to the rail. You
can't do anything without the rail being built first.

~~~
sershe
The solution to bite the bullet though is economic incentive - tax driving
more, eliminate parking, etc. The pain should come first; otherwise, why would
anyone (in sufficient numbers) bite the bullet?

------
cageface
In Orson Welles' classic film, "The Magnficent Ambersons", one of the original
inventors of the automobile predicts the changes, many negative, that the
automobile will bring to civilization. Almost exactly 100 years later it
sounds quite prescient:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTTF2QIHDCM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTTF2QIHDCM)

------
jayalpha
This link was once on HN

The Real Reason Your City Has No Money

[https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-
reason...](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason-your-
city-has-no-money)

------
crimsonalucard
Most cities don't need cars. It's already like this you don't need to go to
the future.

Suburban layouts were actually the new thing that came after cities. The
reason why we need cars is because of suburbia. For suburbia to function you
have to live very far away from work and in very very low density
neighborhoods where public transportation is virtually impossible to build.
See Los Angeles.

------
jak92
My City is double decking highways all the while building zero new rail and or
bike lanes.

They are doubling down on stupid.

~~~
kortilla
They are doubling down on what a lot of their population wants. A lot of what
gets left out of the discussion of cities in the US is that tons of people
have no interest in public transportation due to bad experiences or
preconceived notions.

People need examples of good public transportation in the US beyond NYC or
Chicago because those cities come with a lot of other baggage (high taxes,
high rent, high CoL in general). Without an example, it looks to a suburbanite
like the trade off is they lose their yard and 75% of the square footage of
their home for less flexibility and a dirty transportation experience.

These people do not marvel at the efficiency of the Yamamote line as people
are shoved in by train operators during rush hour. They hug the steering
wheels of their luxurious personal space SUVs.

What makes it worse is that prominent politicians in the US on the side
promoting public transport don’t bother to use it when slightly inconvenient
(e.g. the “scandal” of AOC using a minivan when she could have taken a
subway). Even people on the “left” aren’t leading by example.

~~~
licyeus
AOC is mobbed like a celeb when in public and has received death threats
online, yet you fault her for no longer taking the subway?

Regarding realistic trade-offs: I live in Seattle in a 1200 sq ft townhome. I
commute 20-25 mins on public transit (where I read or otherwise zone out). For
what I pay in rent, I could move to the suburbs and get a 2000 sq ft house.
But that comes with a stressful 60 min commute in traffic and $15 a day for
parking.

------
myself248
Funny how the loudest voices in these sorts of articles are always from places
with temperate weather.

~~~
rootusrootus
And places that are already dramatically denser than the vast majority of the
developed world.

Over the weekend I found myself looking for a place in Europe in satellite
view, outside of an urban core, and I was struck by how many single-family
houses there were, complete with driveways and cars. Here on HN I have been
led to believe that Europe is a utopia of forward-thinking people too
concerned about the environment to pollute it with a car that might also kill
innocent pedestrians who just want to walk to their local grocery store.

HN readers have created a lovely bubble for themselves.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
By definition, places with high population-density are the places where a lot
of people live. It is not a "bubble".

~~~
rootusrootus
The bubble is here on HN where people routinely talk about America as if it is
one big suburban hellhole and Europe as if it is one big metropolis paradise.

------
afettere
If you are interested in learning more about how cities are dealing with the
myriad of challenges outlined in the National Geographic article, I encourage
you check out UrbanFootprint
([https://urbanfootprint.com/](https://urbanfootprint.com/)).

Building off our background as urban planners, the UrbanFootprint software
platform helps communities, cities, and regions deal with the challenges that
they face. We bring data, analytics, and most importantly, actionable insight
to problems such as congestion, pollution, accessibility, and risks like
flooding, sea level rise, and fires.

The software is used by public jurisdictions across the country, the private
consultants who consult for those jurisdictions, and by others in real estate,
finance, and new mobility modes.

------
Ericson2314
What gets me about these densification of suburban center proposals is that
they don't come with racing the sprawl. If you just create more "central",
well assuming some x-far-from-center contour lines distribution you might be
creating more sprawl too.

We need to demolish our mistakes not just build new non-mistakes. We need
fractal density so everyone gets both green space and high density very close,
and reclaimed nature and super density not far away either.

Go to inwood Manhattan to feel what reclaimed natue is like.

------
jimmaswell
I'd hate walking everywhere, having to get tiny amounts of groceries every day
instead of stocking up every 2 weeks, etc. Walking/standing all day at
conventions feels like death and a half a mile trip to the fast food places
around here turns from 2 minutes to 10 minutes if I walk, which I tried when
someone from Europe said that's walking distance. Walking such distances just
makes me constantly wish I was driving or something. I find the drive thru
experience really nice - bring the dog along in the passenger seat, get a
burger, eat in the parking lot and give her some of the beef, whole trip takes
under 10 minutes. A joy instead of a drag like walking is.

If a city of the future must abandon cars then the way I'd like it is if there
were equal or less walking compared to driving. Futurama tubes would be great.

Side note: "No walking is a prescription for obesity" \- exercising for weight
loss has been thoroughly debunked. [1]

1: [https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-you-shouldn-t-
exercis...](https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-you-shouldn-t-exercise-to-
lose-weight-explained-with-60-studies)

~~~
jakeinspace
Sounds like my experience living in Houston. Of course I'd hate living here
without a car, I did it for a few months and it's ridiculous. But compared to
Montreal, Sydney, Toronto, or even Philadelphia (my points of reference), this
is far and away the worst living experience. My commute to work is 15 minutes,
which isn't too bad. It used to be a 10-minute bike ride or 20-minute walk,
which was both healthier and more enjoyable, not to mention more
environmentally friendly and free. I enjoyed getting groceries every few days:
picking up some produce and bread on the way home from one of the dozens of
businesses on the way was delightful, and meant I could always have fresh
food.

Living in suburban America (it's hard to call Houston a city in the same sense
as the ones I mentioned above) is emotionally draining. Yes, there are
positives: good food, good beer, cheap cost of living. However, I don't feel
like I'm part of a community. I feel like I live on a small island in an
archipelago of disconnected islands. It feels like everybody here who hasn't
lived in a walkable dense urban city doesn't know what they're missing, there
are intangible psychological benefits. Of course, these are just the thoughts
of an east-coaster.

~~~
rootusrootus
Different strokes for different folks. My suburban neighborhood is very
socially active, we all know each other very well. I know their kids and vice
versa, etc. What I find draining is all the noise when I go downtown, and
being around so many strangers. I visit friends who live in condos downtown
and they don't know their shared-wall neighbors as well as I know mine in the
next house over. Everyone just retreats back to their personal cave once
they're done dealing with the crowds.

~~~
jakeinspace
I'm sure my experience is partly due to my own learned preferences, as well as
the specifics of my neighborhood. I know there are nice suburban and rural
areas to live, and I hope that with time I develop a greater appreciation for
what's here.

------
raphar
> In the 1990s Calthorpe scored a breakthrough: He helped persuade Portland,
> Oregon, to build a light-rail line instead of another freeway and to cluster
> housing, offices, and shops around it.

Mr Calthorpe is playing simcity in Real Life, ENVY!

------
a13n
Show me a carless city with nice weather most of the year that I can easily
get a visa to live in, and I'd strongly consider it! Bonus if it's in
US/Canada.

~~~
asdff
Portland, OR

------
Symmetry
Honestly one of the bigger potential benefits of self-driving cars would be
the decreased need for parking and resulting increased density.

------
PorterDuff
In addition to convenience, habit, and layout of cities and living areas, I'd
say that a big push for cars is personal security.

------
lazyjones
Improving life in cities is a matter of fixing existing problems, like poor
public transport and pollution from combustion engines and heating. Building a
"feel good" fantasy around the hatred of cars isn't going to improve anything,
it'll just replace the current best choice for individual transport with
something inferior, as well as destroy the economy (which depends on roads for
logistics and public services).

~~~
benj111
I don't think its a hatred of cars. Its just cars are so entrenched in western
cultures that its easy to overlook all the problems.

All those things you cited are all exacerbated by the car. Electric cars will
solve the pollution issue, but they are still cars, with all the issues they
bring.

~~~
lazyjones
> I don't think its a hatred of cars. Its just cars are so entrenched in
> western cultures that its easy to overlook all the problems.

They are entrenched for a reason: because they are extremely useful. Without
cars and the individual transport methods they superseded, many of our cities
wouldn't even exist.

What this and many other articles do, is to decide first what the problem
should be and then build a case around it to show it in a bad light. That's
not how you improve life in cities, it's just how you get rid of cars and with
them all the benefits you've overlooked. Proof: you can get all the benefits
of cars without the drawbacks by putting all the infrastructure for cars
underground and using EV. None of these "visionaries" consider that, because
they hate cars.

~~~
benj111
I don't think there are any cities that wouldn't exist without cars, the shape
of cities would change yes, but that is one of the problems of cars.

Cars are useful yes, doesn't mean we shouldn't question them. Just like we
should question trains, bikes etc.

Re putting cars underground. Yes you could, are you going to support the taxes
to pay for it?

"What this and many other articles do, is to decide first what the problem
should be and then build a case around it to show it in a bad light."

Why don't you decide on the merits of the argument rather than perceived
motivation?

------
Taylor_OD
Eventually, cars will become a shared resource right? If cars can drive on
their own then you could rent your car out while you're at work to lyft or
uber. Eventually wouldn't most people do this? Eventually, wouldn't there be a
multitude of cars roaming the city? Why would you need to own one?

I live in a fairly walkable city but it still seems odd to me that people hold
such a personal connection to their cars.

~~~
swift532
Well, I also use my car as a giant man-purse. Furthermore, sometimes you want
to travel out of the beaten path and it's possible that the only way you can
get there is with your own car.

------
growtofill
> they’d no longer segregate rich from poor

Should people who want to spend more on housing be automatically labeled
“rich”?

~~~
bogle
Should people who _can 't_ afford housing be automatically labelled "poor"?
It's certainly one indicator.

Not segrating people improves the world. Segragating them introduces division,
self-evidentially. Something to be avoided, then, and worked against.

Planners will try to mix properties in a new development, if the local
politics is to provide for everyone fairly.

~~~
bluGill
You cannot mix a new development like that. Building a house is expensive, so
only the rich and upper middle class can afford it. The poor always have and
always will live in the houses the above lived in some years back and left for
something newer.

What planners need to do it make sure that when the rich vacate the
neighborhood they left behind is good. Part of that is making sure that some
of the rich decide to rebuild their current house instead of leaving thus
mixing the neighborhood a bit.

Cities are a long games. The "ideal" state you plan today to build tomorrow is
not the end state. That means your plans need to account for change. New
development will be old in 20 years, what then?

~~~
ozzyman700
"Mixed Income Housing" is becoming more and more prevalent, it decreases
segregation by forcing proportions of new development to include low income
housing.

Possibly your statement: "You cannot mix a new development like that. Building
a house is expensive, so only the rich and upper middle class can afford it.
The poor always have and always will live in the houses the above lived in
some years back and left for something newer." could be a bit of an absolute.

~~~
bluGill
One of two things are happening: either the mixed income is richer and middle
class - as I already said; or the rich are paying extra for their house to
subsidies the house of the poor. Probably a mixture of each.

------
techntoke
We need to expand the remote work force and create AR devices that can replace
mobile phones to make collaborative sustainable living a reality.

------
qwerty456127
Obviously.

------
TausAmmer
I hate cities and love driving my truck, take that old boy in mud and have
something I enjoy in life. There is plenty of these stories.

Will one give up himself to go on as husk.

