r/fuckcars / Not Just Bikes / Urbanists / New Urbanism / Car-Free / Anti-Car - People and grifters who hate personal transport, freedom, cars, roads, suburbs, and are obsessed with city planning and urban design

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I wonder what they would have been recommending, everyone to arrive on bikes?
1781948023235.png
The heist of the century
 
Me, an utter clueless rube:
"It seems like the train cannot handle the amount of people."

The enlightened urbanist:
"Congestion stems from the fact the train is too successful."

Rail is really something a city should have been built around, trying to add rail capacity seems like a nightmare. And then if you designed the system for absolute max capacity you end up with unused resources most of the time.
 
Rail is really something a city should have been built around, trying to add rail capacity seems like a nightmare. And then if you designed the system for absolute max capacity you end up with unused resources most of the time.
What is this capacity you speak of? Trains carry infinite numbers of people, unlike cars which only carry a single person. A single light rail line can easily carry an entire football stadium's worth of people in a few minutes; anything you may have heard to the contrary is carbrained propaganda from Big Oil.
 
Completely wrong and reddity, trying to deny how people fled from the niggers. Just because some suburbs existed before Rome has been founded, it doesn't mean that the big suburbanization wave did not happen post-WW2. That is also the era where the shitty sideways commieblocks that look like a shitty Simcity clone using a single house asset were built too. There is an entire separate topic here about Lustron/General Panel Corporation/etc. housing here but its tangential already
That's nice, but completely irrelevant to how much of a shithole of a city is that is over 25% parking lots. There are a few steps between a parking lot and a high-rise to built that you have missed. And yes, realizing that 25% more ground to cover means 25% effort from services is just absolutely basic math and in the end inefficiency always turns into money to be paid by the taxpayer(you). The worst thing is that those parking lots are not even needed, they are never full, they are well overbuilt and even the businesses know it, but they are legally mandated to because of shitty laws.
Hmm, so we need to repeal the Civil Rights Act?
 
[QUOTE
What is this capacity you speak of? Trains carry infinite numbers of people, unlike cars which only carry a single person. A single light rail line can easily carry an entire football stadium's worth of people in a few minutes; anything you may have heard to the contrary is carbrained propaganda from Big Oil.

Logistical reality is a conspiracy theory made by big oil!
 
Completely wrong and reddity, trying to deny how people fled from the niggers. Just because some suburbs existed before Rome has been founded, it doesn't mean that the big suburbanization wave did not happen post-WW2. That is also the era where the shitty sideways commieblocks that look like a shitty Simcity clone using a single house asset were built too. There is an entire separate topic here about Lustron/General Panel Corporation/etc. housing here but its tangential already
The problem is that you still haven't explained why suburbanization happened in white cities (including non-American ones) as well and occurred broadly throughout the entire latter 20th century. And are telling me that "the niggers" are strictly a post-WWII invention?

That's nice, but completely irrelevant to how much of a shithole of a city is that is over 25% parking lots. There are a few steps between a parking lot and a high-rise to built that you have missed. And yes, realizing that 25% more ground to cover means 25% effort from services is just absolutely basic math and in the end inefficiency always turns into money to be paid by the taxpayer(you).
"The city is 25% parking lots" is stuff you're pulling out of your ass, plus the reality is road infrastructure is a tiny part of any given city (even Houston), the overwhelming majority goes to stuff like education, health & human services, public safety, and pensions.

The worst thing is that those parking lots are not even needed, they are never full, they are well overbuilt and even the businesses know it, but they are legally mandated to because of shitty laws.
Not really.

First off, people who rag about parking minimums will tell you without irony or sarcasm that downtowns were destroyed for parking minimums (reality--all buildings are grandfathered in and downtowns are still exempt). I hope you're not one of those people.

Secondly, all the major chains have prototypes that want a certain number of parking spaces just because that's what they expect business to be. Walmart builds in lots of areas that are outside city limits, and of course you see Dollar General stores out in the sticks.

Thirdly, even in cities where parking minimums have been abolished, you see only reductions of 10-20% parking space (source).

Your rhetoric reminds me of the common /r/fuckcars sentiment that no one actually wanted a car or a house with a yard, it was all propaganda. Frankly, the sheer amounts of Indians in the suburbs should help disprove that theory, but we don't even need our suburbs getting flooded with Indians to prove the fact that they aren't demanding to ride trains, it's just human nature.

Offloading is not done in gigantic parking lots, so its completely unrelated.
Tell me that you've never worked retail without working retail. Your point was that we didn't "need" huge parking lots and, presumably, be happier with storefront businesses like they have in whatever Eastern Bloc country you hail from/idolize, but that's the way that modern businesses and logistics operate.
 
A large urbanist twitter account that is dedicated to hating on suburbs for being "ugly" unironically defended Obama's ugly "library":
Wyświetl załącznik 9171070
Source (Archive)
Brutalist architects from the Soviet Union would take one look at that and say it is shit.
I think it's the park that really does it. The Long Lines building is also horrible, but at least it blends in with the general horribleness of NY:
The curvy park is a horrible contrast and it looks so dense too, it is like 80% path. If you want to enjoy a picnic by the lake you need to go to the other side and be forced to look at the ugly monstrosity.
 
Come on now, typing out those novels trying to defend giga strip mall parking lots for "unloading", not even a boomer does that.
I accept your concession.

More like a Temu version of Italian Fascist architecture. They really liked the "letters in concrete" thing.
Someone might be able to do me better (you know the picture) but OpenAI was at least able to produce this (using "Black American President" as a prompt):
4e59c7e5-dd19-4b08-b4d1-8753eb8c36f4.png
 
More like a Temu version of Italian Fascist architecture. They really liked the "letters in concrete" thing.
The park area looks pretty neat but that's not architecture, right? That's just landscaping.
The curvy park is a horrible contrast and it looks so dense too, it is like 80% path. If you want to enjoy a picnic by the lake you need to go to the other side and be forced to look at the ugly monstrosity.
And there's the issue with it, it's not a park if you can't sit down and do activities in it.
Here's some more recent videos:
So where are the urbanists complaining about "induced demand" on this one?
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole