this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
131 points (90.2% liked)
Solarpunk Urbanism
1836 readers
2 users here now
A community to discuss solarpunk and other new and alternative urbanisms that seek to break away from our currently ecologically destructive urbanisms.
- Henri Lefebvre, The Right to the City — In brief, the right to the city is the right to the production of a city. The labor of a worker is the source of most of the value of a commodity that is expropriated by the owner. The worker, therefore, has a right to benefit from that value denied to them. In the same way, the urban citizen produces and reproduces the city through their own daily actions. However, the the city is expropriated from the urbanite by the rich and the state. The right to the city is therefore the right to appropriate the city by and for those who make and remake it.
Checkout these related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If there were sufficient public transport that was accessible, then you wouldn't need to
Also the cities that have the most investment in things like multimodal public transit are also the best cities to drive in. If you just genuinely want or need the car those cities are better then the cities designed for the car. Designing for the car creates the worst outcomes for the car.
Parking requirements were established in an entirely unscientific way. And they've never really been updated.
A city with a lot less parking would be one that was easier for Grandma to get around in even if she was getting around in it in a car. People with significant disabilities are pretty much the only ones who should expect parking when they go to places.
The best cities to drive in have populations of around 5000 people. Just enough population that there are things to drive to (very limited things, but still things), but not enough that there is congestion even during what passes for rush hour.
Or places like Amsterdam that regularly rank top cities for drivers because they can afford good planning and maintenance on their svelt network. Because people who don't want to drive just don't.
It's easy for a small town like you described to have just brutal congestion. And they routinely do, in the US, when the whole town is a highway offramp wart off an artillery feeder road made up of commercial parks and box stores. They end up with chains of back to back streetlights and tons of left turns across traffic and are always a headache to get through - not to mention dangerous. And they're the most universal sight in North America.
Not in a town of 5000. That sounds more like 50,000 people. At 5000 even a highway offramp cannot support many big box stores. Either that or a.suburb, which might have only 5000, but the drivers from the rest of the MSA visit and add up.
I'm definitely with you on that.
Fewer parking spots is not a solution on its own... It's a natural consequence of good public transportation network. No one really enjoys to spend hours on traffic to go anywhere.
It is a solution on its own. Many cities have far more parking than they need - even on "black friday" there are empty parking spaces. Those parking spaces could be redeveloped to something else (not all of them as that something else will also need parking)
Of course the more you redevelop those empty parking spaces, the denser you get and the better chance is that public transit will work. The more people who arrive via transit the less parking spaces you need as well, which means more empty parking can de redeveloped.