View Single Post
Old 06-27-16, 08:47 AM
  #17  
mconlonx
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7148 Post(s)
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower
I disagree. There is a certain rationality to avoiding driving that many people just ignore because their minds are geared toward image-management instead of independent reason in decision making. The only way many people would think, "I don't care what it will look like; I'm going to just bike or take a bus instead of driving," is if someone they saw and admired on TV exhibited that attitude first. People are simply inhibited by boundaries of what they expect will be received in a socially-favorable way. I don't think this was the case some decades ago. Probably before radio, people made decisions more independently of social-cultural role-modeling through media. They might have taken into consideration what their family members or peers might think, but the norms weren't as clearly defined in terms of widespread imagery. It's a hard topic to nail down, though, because there's no way to keep historical records of what people were thinking in the past.


It is a mistake to think of cities changing so radically as LCF becomes more dominant. What's more likely is that we'd simply see traffic congestion decreasing and more local work, shopping, and recreational opportunities being created. Eventually, if traffic decreases enough, we could see outside lanes separated from motor-vehicle lanes by treed medians, but up to now 'road-narrowing' brings a public reaction akin to being choked to death.

Maybe more "super high density cities" like NYC will develop, but I think those will be the exception. I think most places will be the same as what we would call suburban sprawl today, except the sprawl will end up more bikeable/walkable, hopefully greener with more tree canopy, and more local work, shopping, and recreation.

There will be denser downtown areas, but they will not grow too dense because people will want to 'move to the burbs,' only the burbs will be biking distance away and the option to take transit will be more practical as well. How can such practically multimodal-scaled cities evolve from current levels of automotive sprawl? Answer: by local shopping centers evolving into mixed-use residential-commercial areas, which grow into downtown areas for their local surroundings, which are connected with other 'downtown' mixed-use areas of the larger municipality via transit and bike highways.
It will still take a sea-change. What is portrayed by media will not change overnight and will be based on economic realities. Until and unless sustainability becomes profitable, it won't show up in MSM. Media will not change, "just because it's the right thing to do," they will react to popular and economic trends.

I see more and more local scenes flourishing, so it may be that the change you want is happening already, in early stages. It still won't happen quickly, likely until you are too old to care or dead.

The 'burbs will not be biking distance away. All real estate within biking distance of downtowns is already built out -- and this is what I'm talking about when talking about super-cities: those areas with merely high density, within cycling distance of downtowns will need to become super-high density to accommodate a non-motor vehicle commuting population.

Jobs are getting more decentralized, there is more tele-commuting going on than ever, but most companies, most jobs, still require physical attendance.

I think you vastly underestimate the scale of what you suggest as some kind of LCF, sustainable way of life.
mconlonx is offline