[QatzelOk]

Do you know of any in your region?

Or any car-free districts in your city or town?

Do you think it would be a good idea to offer these areas to the public, or is it important that cars be able to travel everywhere?

[Dr House]

Do you know of any in your region?

No.

Or any car-free districts in your city or town?

Even less. You really can't get anywhere in this fucking island without a car.

Do you think it would be a good idea to offer these areas to the public, or is it important that cars be able to travel everywhere?

Cars are a convenience measure and roads are still essential for goods distribution, so even though I believe we should make car-free travel as easy as possible cars should still be allowed everywhere.

[Oxymoron]

I actually thought about it, and its not a bad idea. It would certainly reduce health costs and infarstructure maintaince with the savings we could finance an improved Mass transport network.

Cars should be used for City to city travel, rural use and commercial purposes in a perfect world.

[Dr House]

Oxy, how are distribution and logistics gonna work without trucks and shit? How are you gonna get your groceries?

[Oxymoron]

Oxy, how are distribution and logistics gonna work without trucks and shit? How are you gonna get your groceries?

Like I said except commercial use, trucks would only use special roads and would need a reason to drive in residential areas (deliveries, construction etc). I get my groceries by walking to the local grocery buying it and walking home.

[Thunderhawk]

Toronto Island.

Its not purely car free, as utility companies and city services/maintainance cars are there, but they are rare and drive slowly. The residents of the island walk/bike to the local grocery store for their goods.

As the roads (paved paths) are designed for truck usage but the usage is light, the roads are usually in very nice condition.

[QatzelOk]

Toronto Island.

Yeah, and it's really nice there. A nude beach, an amusement park, marinas, and a tiny car-free village.

But what about an inner-city/downtown district? Wouldn't these be the easiest areas to live in without a car?

Wouldn't Manhattan or Central Paris be much higher quality spaces if they were car-free?

Wouldn't almost any downtown be better without car commuters clogging them up?

[Thunderhawk]

But what about an inner-city/downtown district? Wouldn't these be the easiest areas to live in without a car?

Probably.

But what about an inner-city/downtown district? Wouldn't these be the easiest areas to live in without a car?

I suspect some of the businesses would leave if cars were forbidden in the region, or they would simply not centralize and insted have a large sprawling business area rather then a compact high density area.

Wouldn't Manhattan or Central Paris be much higher quality spaces if they were car-free?

Would Manhatttan or central Paris be as heavily populated and developed if cars were not allowed?

Wouldn't almost any downtown be better without car commuters clogging them up?

Probably, but I suspect high end businesses would decline which in turn would slowly turn the downtown region from concentrated wealth (and living) into medium sized business sprawl. Not necessarily bad, but I cant see that being good for a city's economy nor job market.

[Oxymoron]

Wouldn't Manhattan or Central Paris be much higher quality spaces if they were car-free?

Perhaps not car free, as there is a need for commercial vehicles but less cars would be a vast improvement.

[QatzelOk]

Would Manhatttan or central Paris be as heavily populated and developed if cars were not allowed?

Both of these areas were more heavily populated before cars became popular. So yes, they would. Cars take up a lot of room.

I suspect some of the businesses would leave if cars were forbidden in the region, or they would simply not centralize and insted have a large sprawling business area rather then a compact high density area.

Before the car age, things were more centralized, and not less.

Though there were no mega-malls, the downtowns of cities had everything you needed within walking distance of your home/business or school. Cars sprawled everything out. Malls concentrate a lot of activities into one area, but the parking function takes up the vast majority of the space. So even mega-malls aren't really that concentrated.

[Thunderhawk]

Both of these areas were more heavily populated before cars became popular.

At what living standard?

Before the car age, things were more centralized, and not less.

Which adds historic credence to my suspecion.

Before the car age, the majority of the population where rural and the urban population wasnt exploding either.

[MistyTiger]

1. No
2. No
3. Yes. Cars are convenient and they decrease travel time, but conveniences make people lazy. People forget that they can walk or that they have memory in their own brain (using Blackberries and Palm Pilots and other electronic organizers to remember dates and chores), to name a few lazy aspects about the modern person. I used to have a neighbor who would drive the short distance to her mailbox. She didn't even walk for that.

[Evilive]

Nope, where I live the area was built around the car, so not having a car means your fucked. Even with a car its a 35 min drive to the nearest college.

and worst of all, there is NO mass transit here. None, nada.

And if you have a bike or want to walk, there are not even sidewalks so if your biking you will be putting your life in serious risk by driving on the side of the road.

I've seen lots of memorials on the side of the roads were people have been hit and killed while walking/biking on the side of the road.

[QatzelOk]

At what living standard?

Well, the women didn't have to work, so I'm guessing they were pretty well off.

Though they didn't have cars back before they had cars, so that means their quality of life was carless when they were carless.

[Thunderhawk]

Well, the women didn't have to work, so I'm guessing they were pretty well off.

Though they didn't have cars back before they had cars, so that means their quality of life was carless when they were carless.

Thats a responce, but its not an answer.

When those cities had higher population density, what was the level of hygiene? hunger due to food prices?
upward mobility? literacy?

ghettos routinely have hugh population density. Where Manhattan and Paris historic high density regions ghettos, or were they at a good standard of living?

[QatzelOk]

When those cities had higher population density, what was the level of hygiene?

Well, people didn't have to walk around with masks on their faces to protect from pollution.

hunger due to food prices?

Before car suburbs, milk products and some vegetables were grown right next to the city, and arrived fresh. This is almost never true now that car suburbs have eaten up so much near-city prime farmland.

upward mobility?

You didn't need a car to go to work/school/club/home, so people mingled more and this built a lot more social capital.

literacy?

The car age has lead to suburb-locked TV-tards who don't get out enough or talk to people in spontaneous social situations. This has been as harmful to Western thought as burning the books of Ancient Greece was to Medieval European thought. Western car-man has burned his social life in order to keep a resource-thirsty toy running in his residential zones.

My suggestion is for all cities to be OBLIGED to provide at least 10% of their center-city land area to car-free residential and commercial zones.

Look, it's a real idea

[noemon]

Spetses



Hydra



In my island(Elafonisos) cars are banned from entering the city centre during 7 pm-2 am.

[Holding]

In the winters I go to a place called Whistler where the main downtown area (Whistler Village) is car-free. It's nicer than I thought it would be. I wouldn't suggest it for larger cities, however. That's what the subway is for.

[QatzelOk]

That's what the subway is for.

It's amazing how so many cities bury their commuters underground in a hole (which is depressing for these people), and then they go and use the surface for cars.

This is a stupid waste of money. If there's room for cars on the surface, then the subway ought to be above-ground as well.

Car free cities can have road-top mass transit.

[Dr House]

what if there's not enough room above-ground to fit enough subways for commuters to comfortably use?

You're underestimating just how densely packed big cities are. And if we abolished suburbs they'd be even more densely packed.