|
|
|
|
|
|
by bobulous
1704 days ago
|
|
|
> For one thing, there are autos all over Paris, so at least in principle it ought to be possible to build in ways that are both highly attractive and allow for cars. The presence of cars does not mean it was built for cars. The most important difference between pre-war and post-war neighborhoods is that one was built FOR cars |
|
|
> One common explanation for the decline of urban and neighborhood beauty is the rise of the automobile, which makes it harder to develop such places. Surely cars and traffic can ruin many an attractive scene. Still, this is not even close to a full answer. For one thing, there are autos all over Paris, so at least in principle it ought to be possible to build in ways that are both highly attractive and allow for cars.
The problem with cars isn't how they look, it's how they lead to communities where people don't share space, can't walk from place to place, encapsulate once open spaces, and separate everyone. Plus they pollute and kill people. In cities built before cars, like Paris, people share space and interact. You can walk to the produce vendor, tailor, etc without parking in giant lots around box stores.
Airplanes repeat the pattern on a national scale.