703
People Hate the Idea of Car-Free Cities—Until They Live in One (www.wired.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/fuck_cars@lemmy.ml
222 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

What city?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    san francisco

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 32 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Huh, weird that when I was there, there were literally thousands of cars. Probably just hallucinated it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That’s not really what car free means.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    For years I've somehow missed this. Cars driving on nearly every street and somehow that "car-free", yeah makes perfect sense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I think it's because the bar is so low, just the ability to choose to walk for everyday commuting, errands, and leisure qualifies as car free. Ie, you can choose to be car free if you want.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Oh. So you mean the places where you have to be rich to live at a nice place, while everyone else has to live in a tiny apartment in a huge building that's been borderline uninhabitable since the 1970's?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    Yes and that's the problem. Walkable areas are currently mostly only affordable for the rich (mainly in the US that is, other countries seem to have no problem designing both rich and poor areas to be walkable). If we built more places to be walkable, less affluent areas might be able to enjoy the benefits as well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah I don't understand that at all. I thought car free meant a place, usually a part of town, where cars are not allowed. Those places exist. So to call places nothing like that "car free" seems pretty useless imo

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    In general usage it means 'the ability to get by with the usual needs of life without needing a car'.

    At least as far as I understand it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I suspect you're referring to the use of the term when applied to a person. It makes much more sense to me to say "I'm car free" even if I own a car if I don't drive it regularly. I mean, still not accurate, but makes more sense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    I'm referring to how folks use it on social media. 'car free city' very very rarely would mean banning cars from a city.

    I'm not saying it is the correct term. At all.

    'walkable cities' makes more sense to me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    I guess that's one way to understand that word.

    Colloquially it is used to refer to the capability of a place that allows its inhabitants to live car free.

    Completely banning cars is rarely a demand because it makes no sense. A car is not a problem, hundreds of them are. Especially if they are used and required for everyday mundane tasks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    SF and Oakland aren't car-free, they are car outsourced. You don't drive, you have someone drive you. Other then a very narrow stretch of Down Town SF to Oakland, most of that metro area isn't served by public transit. Unlike say NYC where most of the metro area IS served by public transit. (It's still not car free though.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent