The future is dense, walkable cities.

Riding an elevator counts as riding in a car. Since I don't live in a high rise, I don't have personal experience to equate number of floors walked up to distance walked on flat ground, but that is probably a stat somewhere.
 
I already pay for your roads. Drivers have never paid their own way, they always ask for “more, more, more” from the government.
That's our civilization, not drivers specifically. Infinite expansion is our core European value that pushes for more roads, space colonization, scientific progress, etc. We can't afford all of that now, so all sorts of special interests are fighting to get bigger slices of a shrinking pie.
 
If I pass you standing at the bus stop in 20 deg. below weather, I'll wave from my heated seats. :)
I live in LA. It’s never 20 degrees here. When I ride the train home from work I enjoy watching the drivers stuck in traffic on the 10.

Spending money on mass transit instead of highways allows more people get to their destinations faster.
 
I've lived in cities all over the world, not fucking LA, what a joke of a city, no one wants to be anywhere near anyone else, but this idea of mass public transit somehow being quicker than anything?

Have you ever waited on a fucking subway???
 
If I pass you standing at the bus stop in 20 deg. below weather, I'll wave from my heated seats. :)
The bicyclists wave hello as they ride past the guys putting their mortgage payments, college tuition, etc. in their fuel tanks. :)
 
Where does 'Watts' fit into your dense, walkable city? Gotta put the poor people somewhere. Or just walk around them? :)
 
My take: We don't know what the future will hold and we should be cautious about making predictions and prescriptions.

What if world population tops out by mid-century and begins to fall? What if we finally develop flying cars? Or what if communication technology becomes so advanced that we lose the need to physically move from one place to another (this is already happening to some degree). What if we develop far better methods of resource management and environmental protection (better water use)?

I can't speak for all countries, but there's plenty of space in the USA and there will be for a long time. I suspect the OP is right that the long-term trend will be toward smarter urban areas, but I'm not sure about that.

The one thing I feel reasonably confident about is that long-term solutions will be consumer-driven, from the bottom up, rather than government-driven, from the top down. But I don't know for sure what consumers ultimately will want.
 
My take: We don't know what the future will hold and we should be cautious about making predictions and prescriptions.

What if world population tops out by mid-century and begins to fall? What if we finally develop flying cars? Or what if communication technology becomes so advanced that we lose the need to physically move from one place to another (this is already happening to some degree). What if we develop far better methods of resource management and environmental protection (better water use)?

I can't speak for all countries, but there's plenty of space in the USA and there will be for a long time. I suspect the OP is right that the long-term trend will be toward smarter urban areas, but I'm not sure about that.

The one thing I feel reasonably confident about is that long-term solutions will be consumer-driven, from the bottom up, rather than government-driven, from the top down. But I don't know for sure what consumers ultimately will want.
A big part of the modern urbanist movement is ending government subsidies that encourage car travel. The car-centric infrastructure that dominates U.S cities is the result of 100 years of bad government policy. If drivers bore the real cost of automobile usage, the free market would take care of the rest.
 
A big part of the modern urbanist movement is ending government subsidies that encourage car travel. The car-centric infrastructure that dominates U.S cities is the result of 100 years of bad government policy. If drivers bore the real cost of automobile usage, the free market would take care of the rest.

I agree.
 
OK, here's your chance. Push the focus of this into redeveloping urban areas.

Harris campaign releases new ad to highlight plans to build 3 million homes

abcnews.go.com.ico
ABC News|14 hours ago
Vice President Kamala Harris has a new advertising push to draw attention to her plan to build 3 million new homes over four years



There are large sections of many cities that are dilapidated and nearly uninhabitable due to decay of the homes. Use programs like this to demolish blocks of older inefficient and outdated homes. Two flats, four flats, oversized places built in the 30s or before when big was better. Blocks where there may have been 50 structures on 30' x 60' lots. Expand the lots a bit to maybe 40 or 50' wide instead of 30. Build new one or two story homes that are energy efficient with a price point more people can afford but with a bit more green space they use for gardening or home recreation.

Use similar funding to redevelop local retail so people don't have to travel miles to get a gallon of milk.

Then add in your transportation options.
 
A big part of the modern urbanist movement is ending government subsidies that encourage car travel. The car-centric infrastructure that dominates U.S cities is the result of 100 years of bad government policy. If drivers bore the real cost of automobile usage, the free market would take care of the rest.
So far the policies of your party have destroyed some of the greatest cities in the US. You've turned downtown San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles into drug-ridden trash heaps that are hardly walkable without being armed.
 
So far the policies of your party have destroyed some of the greatest cities in the US. You've turned downtown San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles into drug-ridden trash heaps that are hardly walkable without being armed.
I walk around downtown Los Angeles all the time. It would be safer if there were fewer cars, but we're working on that.
 
I walk around downtown Los Angeles all the time. It would be safer if there were fewer cars, but we're working on that.
Cars are now banned on Market Street in San Francisco which led to the closing of most of the businesses on the street as well. All you see now are empty storefronts, bums, litter, and graffiti. But I will admit you're free to walk, get mugged, killed, or tiptoe around piles of shit. I hear Fisherman's Wharf is closed as well. Great accomplishment now the sea lions really are free to take over and stink the place up.
 
Cars are now banned on Market Street in San Francisco which led to the closing of most of the businesses on the street as well. All you see now are empty storefronts, bums, litter, and graffiti. But I will admit you're free to walk, get mugged, killed, or tiptoe around piles of shit. I hear Fisherman's Wharf is closed as well. Great accomplishment now the sea lions really are free to take over and stink the place up.

🙄

"Right"guide "thinks" that the banning of cars on Market Street in San Francisco is the cause of the problems there, and not shifts in business paradigms due to the pandemic and pandemic related inflation.

😑

👉 "Right"guide 🤣

🇺🇸
 
Last edited:
Pushing people to give up cars while driving is still somewhat affordable is a proposition that won't sell. It needs something offered in trade: guns, blowjobs, etc. If they want the walkability of dense cities they would be seeking that life now.
 
Back
Top