cooker

Who's forcing anybody (or you) to move to the city? People can live where they want. Inevitably more people are going to move to cities because it's the most cost-effective way for people to live, and as we see in New York already, more and more of them won't see the point of owning a car.

There will always be rural life and small towns. What needs to die, and will die naturally if we don't use artificial life support to keep it going, is suburbia, the most wasteful way to live.

Roody

I'm a bit of a grasshopper myself, so I don't think it's a bad thing. I'm just glad we have a few ants around to tell us that winter is coming, and we'd better get on the ball and do something about it.

And I do believe that most people will make difficult or inconvenient changes in their lifestyles in order to help the environment. Ozone depletion is one example. People voluntarily gave up aerosol sprays, and governments followed through with a treaty banning many ozone depletes (Montreal Protocol). Most people have also accepted the inconvenience of recycling and CFLs.

People believe that the environment is "theirs" and they will try to protect it if they think there's a crisis. Right now we have a lot of self interest groups (oil, gas, auto, land use, etc.) spending vast sums of money to convince the public and the politicians that a truth is a lie. And we are supposed to come back with the argument that "it's fun to ride a bike"! I really don't think that's an adequate response at this time. Let's appeal to people's intelligence and their desire to come together to solve a crisis. In other words, lets not quit having fun, but let's listen to the ants.

Mobile 155

How cost effective was that for Detroit? Or what is the big difference between urban sprawl and the suburbs? Both have moved from the city core, as have many jobs.

Roody

Actually, the city of Detroit itself was quite sprawled, like a suburb. Most Detroiters lived in single family homes (with garages, of course). Even most apartments were just two family units, duplexes or, as they were called in Detroit, flats. Today the most popular and expensive areas of Detroit are the densely populated areas like downtown and Midtown.

SHBR

Its called forced relocation, although in North America sometimes eminent domain is used instead.

This is an everyday occurrence in China.

https://shanghaiist.com/search?cx=001...location&sa=GO

Roody

I didn't read every link on that page. I randomly selected four. None were about forced relocation from a suburb to a city. One was about a school being forced to relocate, possibly for political reasons. One was about clearing an urban area to make way for high rise apartments. One was about forcing people out of an area that was going to be flooded by a new dam.

i don't think there will be a need or desire to force people to live in cities. Most people want to live in cities for their own personal reasons.

Mobile 155

And yet downtown and mid town still couldn't keep the city from going bankrupt. Or from whole blocks being bulldozed because of blight. And no there is no need to post links because we have all seen it even on NBC news.

Roody

Sorry, I was unclear in my message. In 1970, almost every Detroiter lived in the sprawled out neighborhoods. Almost nobody lived downtown or in midtown. By 2010, many (not all) neighborhoods were deserted. But a lot of "new" people had already moved into downtown and midtown.

I haven't seen a lot written about this, but I think one reason for the dereliction of Detroit was the sprawled out nature of the city. Manhattan, San francisco, and Boston could all be fit into the Detroit city limits, with room to spare, although the population of Detroit was smaller than those three cities. Today the metro Detroit area is at least 75 miles across, with a population of about 4 million people.

Ekdog

I didn't say you were bizarre. Go back and read my post.

What does seem very strange to me is that anyone who argues that we need to reduce the number of cars on the roads because of the role they play in hastening catastrophic climate change or because of the huge numbers of people they kill is accused of being a proselytizer, a fundamentalist, a finger-wagger or a smug hypocrite. We need to stop this name-calling and get back to discussing the issues.

Machka 

Don't you know ... "fun" isn't a valid reason for riding a bicycle in this particular forum. You've got to have a political purpose for riding a bicycle. You've got to be on a mission. You might even have to suffer for your cause.




Yeah, I know ... it's kind of silly. Nothing wrong with cycling for those reasons, but rest assured, there are a few of us who are, or have been, car-free/car-light ... and one of the main reasons is simply because we enjoy riding our bicycles. Even cycling (or walking) to and from work.

Ekdog

Mobile 155 is way off base regarding the origins of the term "tree hugger".

https://www.alternet.org/story/153703..._huggers'#

SHBR

I suppose this depends on how you define force?

Most people need to work for income. Most people find employment in the city.

Cars are popular because it gives people the option to live outside of the city.

I choose and prefer to live in the city, however I do not want to be forced to do so.

Cities give governments more social control over populations, in the form of increased regulation and taxes.

Given the increasing big brother nanny state control grid that we are under, how much longer will we have a choice?

Roody

No, what's silly is this post that ridicules other people and puts false words in their mouths. Nobody has more fun on a bike than I do, but like a car it can sometimes be a tool. And having concern for the environment does not make one a bad person or a ridiculous person. Just as being apolitical does not make somebody uncaring or unintelligent.

I-Like-To-Bike

How 'bout stop repeatedly raising and "discussing issues" that may be a poster's pet hobby horses, are not necessarily germane to car free living?

I-Like-To-Bike

Having a concern for the environment (or not having a concern for the environment) does not make a person any more or less a living car free person. Just because you and a few other posters continue to beat your drums for your favorite agendas on this list, does not make those issues living car free issues. Your political and social agenda (or anyone else's) is no more a car free living topic than if some other posters decide to constantly berate the readers of this list with their own political and social agendas.

Perhaps a nice "discussion" about the 2nd Amendment, abortion, or nature vs nurture is in order to decide who really is interested in living car free, eh?

Ekdog

Which issues are those? People give up driving for many reasons. Are our conversations to be limited to only those that appeal to you?

Ekdog

Who said it did?

cooker

The failure of Detroit is multifactorial, and de-densification and suburbanization was one factor - when people moved out of the city, property values and revenues fell, and then of course when a lot of them moved out of the state altogether it just added to the crisis. However it is interesting that in it's early phase of recovery, Detroit is reurbanizing, with people moving back into the downtown core, supported by both government and private sector firms like Quicken Loans.

cooker

Those are people working in a specific industry that had a vested interest in the issue. Of course they will react to a threat to their livelihood. But how do you think their sentiments spread to the public at large? I bet it is through lobbyists and PR firms and other public opinion molders who plot their strategies in smoky backrooms.

It would be a pretty naive tree hugger who thinks the way to protect trees is to convince loggers not to log. The idea is to get the message out to the population at large, and influence public perception and public policy.

Tree spiking is one of the worst ideas ever. No mainstream environmental group has ever endorsed it. But that is one of the propaganda techniques people use against advocacy - lump any reasonable advocates in with the extremists, to make it seem as if they are all extremists.

Are you sure about that? I'll have see if I can find any contrary evidence to your assertion.

No, of course not. Taking the bait from some trolls trying to wind you up is not the way to win hearts and minds. You were smart enough not to fall into that trap.

cooker

You need to read some history. Historically, it was rural peasants who were most heavily under the thumb of governments and elites, and heavily taxed. Cities have always been in the forefront of defying Kings and Bishops and promoting democracy and freedom. And in modern times, there's no reason to believe moving to the suburbs or countryside will make you any less subject to state oversight and control.

You would be free free to live outside the city and work in the city, if you chose to, but it would affect me if my taxes helped pay for your freeways or if your exhaust fumes blanketed my neighbourhood, so I think I am well within my rights lobbying for policies that deter sprawl and encourage denser living.

SHBR

Ahh yes, denser living, looks swell to me.
I'm sure it does wonders for your mental health.
I'm guessing, given enough pressure these people will revolt just like "rural peasants" did in the past..









https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/a...ed-study-finds

cooker

There's our favorite forum nanny telling us what is and isn't appropriate for us to discuss, and again using false analogies. People may choose to be car free for environmental or political reasons, or for social or fitness or economical reasons, or purely for enjoyment, and if people on the car free forum want to discuss those reasons why shouldn't they? They're a lot more relevant to the forum than abortion or the constitution. Maybe you should reprimand the people like Machka or lakhotason who say they are car free for pleasure. After all the motivation for being car free is apparently verboten for discussion under your forum rules.

I-Like-To-Bike

Forum nanny? If I were, the OT political and social ranting w/o any car free living content or even bicycling content would be gone to someplace else where political and social issues are "discussed."

If I were the forum nanny, it would be the end of non cycling related political discussions and smug nagging of other posters over their interest in car free living without the PC/"tree hugging" credentials held by the naggers.

Talk about your own motivation to be car free all you want, but that should not be expanded to a license to repeatedly nag every one else on LCF to get "motivated" politically to your level of PC superiority.

cooker

You linked to an article about 280,000 families of urban poor in Hong Kong having to live crowded into subdivided flats. Is your solution that they all buy cars, move to the country and commute to the city every day? Seriously?

cooker

The whole point of the thread is that if people DO talk about their (environmental or political) motivation, it provokes a backlash from someone like you who immediately misrepresents them as smug, preachy, nags, or whatever, with no real evidence except your own preconceptions.