ADDING MORE WALKING AREA TO CITIES IS GOOD… IF…. Yes, in general creating is

ADDING MORE WALKING AREA TO CITIES IS GOOD… IF….

Yes, in general creating islands free of cars in the urban sea is a great strategy. It certainly reflects the ‘block’ strategy of pre-modern european cities. And It is a much better solution than the failed london program to make it too costly to drive in the city.

BUT …. Just to state the obvious: one of the reasons we pay for gated buildings, gated communities, suburbia, or rural residences, and pay to drive cars everywhere, is because unlike europe, america does not aggressively limit ‘unacceptable public behavior’ and worse, we can be trapped on trains, subways and busses with people we would prefer for health, safety, and aesthetic reasons, to insulate ourselves from.

Just as the gay rights movement was civilized by the conformity provided by the marriage movement, the public transport movement would be vastly more successful if it addressed the real reason that so many people avoid public transportation even where its available: the treatment of public spaces as sacred (places where we have no freedoms of expression other than movement through them).

The same applies to the sidewalks. It’s all well and good, but in most american cities it would just turn into another area where people congregate and serve as prey, for unhealthy, criminal, and anti-social behavior.

(Remember, some of us are born with high tolerance or low tolerance for ‘egalitarian purity’ and some of us are born with high tolerance or low tolerance for disgusting, impure, and anti-social behaviors. The fact that we think these are learned rather than genetically determined is just one of those pseudoscientific bits thats still the wishful thinking of postmodernists. You have to satisfy the market for freedom of expression AND the market for purity if you want to achieve european levels of urban living. )

Cheers