Did you forget to respond to my point? Are you suggesting that cities were happy, egalitarian communes prior to the invention of the automobile? Slums and tenement housing would seem to indicate otherwise.
Highways were constructed because it provided an economic advantage to do so. A city without car infrastructure is not economically viable. With more advanced transportation and communication technology, we will eventually supercede the automobile, but to delude yourself into thinking that it was an arbitrary development is silly. There are many negative externalities caused by automobiles, just as there are many negative externalities caused by electricity. That doesn’t negate the advantages.
But regardless, the social dynamics of cities predate such problems; even if we reverted to a pre-car culture cities would still be lonely, violent places for some. They would still be the engines of inequality and hierarchy, because they are the hubs of the economic system.
You seem to be having your own entire argument completely divorced from what I said to start this off. Which is very simple: that city living is not at all at odds with strong communities, and that the biggest thing that hurts local community feeling is car-dependent infrastructure. Because people driving kilometres away to big megastores where they load their groceries into a car and drive home, and have their leisure time at home in large private yards, with few of the local stores, cafes, parks, and other community spaces where people might randomly meet others in their local community, is what causes the alienation the parent comment seemed to be alluding to.
I don’t think urbanised is a good word to describe that alienation. The urbanism movement has as one of its key goals the creation of more vibrant local communities. It’s more like suburbanism.
Urbanized is a great word to describe that alienation. The urbanism movement is trying to create more vibrant urban communities because of the fact that urban environments are inherently alienating, even if you ignore cars entirely. This is why your original comment was dumb. You are naively fixated on car culture as the source of all social alienation, to the extent of implying that cities would be egalitarian utopias if not for cars.
You’re the one who’s been talking around me this entire time, I’ve been making my points very clearly but you’re talking past me because you don’t want to admit you were somewhat mistaken.
the biggest thing that hurts local community feeling is car-dependent infrastructure.
No. Cities are hubs of specialization, which breeds inequality, which breeds resentment, which breeds alienation. No cars required. Have you ever read a Dickens novel? You think life in 1800s London was all hunky-dory because of the lack of highways and non-Euclidean zoning laws? Like what dude?
Did you forget to respond to my point? Are you suggesting that cities were happy, egalitarian communes prior to the invention of the automobile? Slums and tenement housing would seem to indicate otherwise.
Highways were constructed because it provided an economic advantage to do so. A city without car infrastructure is not economically viable. With more advanced transportation and communication technology, we will eventually supercede the automobile, but to delude yourself into thinking that it was an arbitrary development is silly. There are many negative externalities caused by automobiles, just as there are many negative externalities caused by electricity. That doesn’t negate the advantages.
But regardless, the social dynamics of cities predate such problems; even if we reverted to a pre-car culture cities would still be lonely, violent places for some. They would still be the engines of inequality and hierarchy, because they are the hubs of the economic system.
You seem to be having your own entire argument completely divorced from what I said to start this off. Which is very simple: that city living is not at all at odds with strong communities, and that the biggest thing that hurts local community feeling is car-dependent infrastructure. Because people driving kilometres away to big megastores where they load their groceries into a car and drive home, and have their leisure time at home in large private yards, with few of the local stores, cafes, parks, and other community spaces where people might randomly meet others in their local community, is what causes the alienation the parent comment seemed to be alluding to.
Urbanized is a great word to describe that alienation. The urbanism movement is trying to create more vibrant urban communities because of the fact that urban environments are inherently alienating, even if you ignore cars entirely. This is why your original comment was dumb. You are naively fixated on car culture as the source of all social alienation, to the extent of implying that cities would be egalitarian utopias if not for cars.
You’re the one who’s been talking around me this entire time, I’ve been making my points very clearly but you’re talking past me because you don’t want to admit you were somewhat mistaken.
No. Cities are hubs of specialization, which breeds inequality, which breeds resentment, which breeds alienation. No cars required. Have you ever read a Dickens novel? You think life in 1800s London was all hunky-dory because of the lack of highways and non-Euclidean zoning laws? Like what dude?