We should make cities more walkable, less dependent on cars

submitted by P-38lightning from (i.imgur.com)

all 20 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Walkability has shitloads of benefits.

But what's with the wolf in a sheep costume with the red and green rectangles around their eyes?

[–]x0x7 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I think it is only practical that different spaces have different degrees of walkability, but I agree the meme was not clear at all.

Basically for all areas with any development to be walkable then all areas either have to be 100% non-developed or 100% developed, with no in between. It's just not realistic for these lower density areas to be walkable, or just randomly cease to exist.

What's going to happen to the areas currently in between. Is it going to be endless urbanization? You are going to need a lot more people to fill that space so I guess start having babies. Or are they going actually bulldoze entire counties worth of developed land to turn it into farm land?

That's the problem with these ideas. It's just selling the outcome people want as if some government policy could just make it happen and as if it really were some democratic decision. It's like getting support to vote on all cuts of meat being tenderloin. If only voting for that outcome could just make it happen. Maybe we can vote to end cancer?

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Basically for all areas with any development to be walkable then all areas either have to be 100% non-developed or 100% developed, with no in between.

Are you saying that the only areas that are walkable are wilderness and buildings?

Because that's not true.

It's just not realistic for these lower density areas to be walkable, or just randomly cease to exist.

You can increase the walkability of suburbia by ensuring safe pedestrian infrastructure and providing shade and lighting. And by putting walking paths and small parks between streets to make the area more permeable and pleasant to pedestrians.

It can be done without dramatically increasing or eliminating population density.

Or are they going actually bulldoze entire counties worth of developed land to turn it into farm land?

Farmland isn't particularly walkable.

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I think it's a little confusing because the wolf being exposed is on the left and the text is above the other text, meaning you naturally want to read it first, but the idea is:

The innocent, green, good sheep is saying: Making cities walkable is great!
But it's secretly an evil wolf is disguise who has another agenda behind it: Using communism!!

... I don't really understand how one relates to another. I think you could plan your city around foot traffic and still have a free market with little to no starvation, citizen oppressions and gulags, but I think that's the gist it's gunning for.

[–]WoodyWoodPeckerHah he he he hah! 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Zu vill live in apartments, zu vill eat de bugs, zu vill own nufin und zu will like it. -George Soros and other WEF members.

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So the insinuation is that the foot traffic focused city is designed to reduce ownership of things?

[–]WoodyWoodPeckerHah he he he hah! 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You won't have room for them in a one-room apartment. You will rent everything you use.

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That kinda feels like extreme capitalism rather than communism, right? If I'm renting everything I own, someone is profiting, and it's not the people. Wouldn't the communist version be that I get a small, one room apartment and a number of goods assigned to me by the state?

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

But it's secretly an evil wolf is disguise who has another agenda behind it: Using communism!!

Oh? The claim is that urban planning requires communism?

Bloody hell. It's just a fucking sidewalk, people. Yes, it's often build by some level of government, but so the fuck are the roads. So making the cities drivable is equally communist.

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Yeah, I'm not convinced of the connection, but u/WoodyWoodPecker is fleshing out the logic.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

"Zu vill live in apartments, zu vill eat de bugs, zu vill own nufin und zu will like it. -George Soros and other WEF members."?

That reads less like logic to me than it does to you.

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'm asking follow up questions. That's why I said fleshing it out, rather than "Answered".

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think it's generous to call what he's fleshing out "logic".

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I get that you don't think it'll go anywhere, and neither do I, especially given the gap between replies, but you gotta let him give it a go. Who knows? It could turn out to be irrefutable!...

Prolly isn't, but...

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Increasing walkability is unambiguously good for the public. It's plausibly bad for motor vehicle manufacturers, in that families might need one fewer cars.

The claim that city planning supporting pedestrians comes from a whole communist branch of government that is completely different from city planning supporting motor vehicles is ridiculous on the face of it. They're the same people.

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know that the claim is that they are different. I think the meme suggests they are the same people... Also, I'm not sure why you're explaining it to me. You really need to have this conversation with u/WoodyWoodPecker, sorry. I can't make his point for him... As I don't really know what it is yet.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

ㅤ ㅤ ㅤㅤ ㅤ ㅤㅤ ㅤ ㅤIt's explained in the text. That you can't seem to read. For some reason.

-Qᵘᵉˢᵗᶦᵒⁿᵃᵇˡᵉ.̗̀́

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How does "with communism" explain the wolf in a sheep costume with the red and green rectangles around their eyes?

[–]Gaslov 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd love to get to design a city.