there isn’t much more “fuck cars” than this particular “fuck these cars”.
On the contrary, I believe that in a lot of cases (not necessarily this case, but others) trying to single out particular kinds of cars to oppose is a divide-and-conquer tactic by car-apologists. If they get us frothing about ‘swastikars’ (or, more often, ‘bro-dozers’) in particular, they distract us from e.g. the fact that all cars, even down to the humblest hatchback economy car, take up the same amount of space (1 parking space each) and thus contribute equally to things like driving demand for subsidized parking and wrecking walkability. I see the fuck cars movement as being about the detrimental effect car dependency has on urbanism, climate change, public health, etc. in a macro sense, not hate for cars as individual devices.
In other words, I think “particular ‘fuck these cars’” is 100% missing the point of “fuck cars.”
I hope this isn’t one of those instances where I 90% agree with you, but you’re gonna be angry with me over the 10% difference.
Aren’t parking spaces smaller in Europe than the US? There is value is having smaller cars.
To go farther into the 10%, there’s a lot of rural America that needs cars. It’s not practical to lay track literally everywhere. And Park n’ Rides are much, much more tolerable if the demand and use for them is much smaller. I don’t expect places like nowhere Ohio to give up their cars. I just want all towns to be more walkable, and I want the biggest transformation to be in the cities.
Aren’t parking spaces smaller in Europe than the US? There is value is having smaller cars.
Maybe, but if so, it’s only a marginal difference. First of all, keep in mind that you have to design spaces for the biggest cars (or at least the 90th percentile or something, excluding outliers), not the average. Second and more importantly, the big win for urbanism isn’t shaving a foot off the width of a space; it’s having fewer spaces to begin with. It’s also an issue of the proportion of people doing trips in cars vs. other modes, and things like that. If you’re building with the expectation that everybody is entitled to free and abundant parking at their destination, you’re going to destroy walkability regardless of whether they show up in Smart Cars or Suburbans.
To go farther into the 10%…
100% agreed with the whole paragraph. And that’s another reason why I think dog-piling about pickup trucks and other specific automobile makes/models/styles is unhelpful: it often gives ammunition for those special-snowflake types who really do need that kind of vehicle an excuse to claim their exception disproves the rule and dismiss us all as irrational truck-hating reactionaries instead of urbanists with legitimate concerns.
I dunno, there isn’t much more “fuck cars” than this particular “fuck these cars”. Thanks for leaving it up either way.
On the contrary, I believe that in a lot of cases (not necessarily this case, but others) trying to single out particular kinds of cars to oppose is a divide-and-conquer tactic by car-apologists. If they get us frothing about ‘swastikars’ (or, more often, ‘bro-dozers’) in particular, they distract us from e.g. the fact that all cars, even down to the humblest hatchback economy car, take up the same amount of space (1 parking space each) and thus contribute equally to things like driving demand for subsidized parking and wrecking walkability. I see the fuck cars movement as being about the detrimental effect car dependency has on urbanism, climate change, public health, etc. in a macro sense, not hate for cars as individual devices.
In other words, I think “particular ‘fuck these cars’” is 100% missing the point of “fuck cars.”
I hope this isn’t one of those instances where I 90% agree with you, but you’re gonna be angry with me over the 10% difference.
Aren’t parking spaces smaller in Europe than the US? There is value is having smaller cars.
To go farther into the 10%, there’s a lot of rural America that needs cars. It’s not practical to lay track literally everywhere. And Park n’ Rides are much, much more tolerable if the demand and use for them is much smaller. I don’t expect places like nowhere Ohio to give up their cars. I just want all towns to be more walkable, and I want the biggest transformation to be in the cities.
Maybe, but if so, it’s only a marginal difference. First of all, keep in mind that you have to design spaces for the biggest cars (or at least the 90th percentile or something, excluding outliers), not the average. Second and more importantly, the big win for urbanism isn’t shaving a foot off the width of a space; it’s having fewer spaces to begin with. It’s also an issue of the proportion of people doing trips in cars vs. other modes, and things like that. If you’re building with the expectation that everybody is entitled to free and abundant parking at their destination, you’re going to destroy walkability regardless of whether they show up in Smart Cars or Suburbans.
100% agreed with the whole paragraph. And that’s another reason why I think dog-piling about pickup trucks and other specific automobile makes/models/styles is unhelpful: it often gives ammunition for those special-snowflake types who really do need that kind of vehicle an excuse to claim their exception disproves the rule and dismiss us all as irrational truck-hating reactionaries instead of urbanists with legitimate concerns.