Cars are one of the most amazing and wonderful inventions in all of history. They serve us. They connect us. They liberate us.
The future should have lots more cars. Self-driving cars. Flying cars. Space cars! Cars are fantastic.
Nothing else:
* Takes you directly from origin to destination
* Is available instantly on-demand
* Can carry a family and/or packages
* Protects you from the elements
* Is safe to use at night and in all weather
For convenience, practicality, and safety, cars are unbeatable.
Cities should absolutely be designed around cars! Not as an exclusive consideration, but as one of the top considerations.
A city that is unfriendly to cars is a bad city.
Cars were the savior of rural families, ending their isolation. Some farm families ranked having a car above even having a bathroom:
More on the “plauge of rural isolation”:
The transition from urban transit to automobiles was “enthusiastic”. “The twentieth-century urban ridership despised fixed rail transit.”
I am *not* saying that today's cities are designed optimally, or even well! There are probably much better ways we can accommodate many different ways of using and getting around a city. Walking, biking, transit are all great, and we should support those things better too.
I'm just pushing back against the deep, virulent anti-car sentiment I hear so often. People love to hate cars. They are unfairly maligned.
I repeat, cars are fantastic and one of the greatest inventions ever.
Nor am I saying we should design cities “for cars” or “around cars”. Cars aren't the only thing to optimize for, doing so would be unbalanced. But designing “for cars” vs. “for people” is a false dichotomy. People use, enjoy, and benefit from cars!
Incidentally, the value of transportation is super-linear: doubling the range you can travel (within a convenient period of time) quadruples the area and thus the opportunities that you can reach.
Thank you to the small minority of people in this thread who are arguing with me in good faith!
Finally seeing the replies to this thread after getting back from a trip. I assure everyone, I am not serious. The original thread I'm parodying, however, is.
I don't have a SoundCloud to promote. But if you live in Los Angeles, please let @Rendon63rd and @laurafriedman43 know that we need high-speed rail in California to create alternatives to car traffic, using proven and reliable rail technology.
Hello San Francisco. I'm attending a community meeting for 633 Arguello, a housing project being proposed using the newly minted Constraints Reduction Act. The meeting is also being held at 633 Arguello. Toby Morris, the architect, is presenting in a hybrid format.
The project sponsor is an owner-builder-developer who wants to demolish a duplex to build a fourplex. Morris says the mayor is trying to expedite housing in some areas. Mayor wants to encourage development to remove Planning Commission hearings for "this very kind of project"
Further, the project takes advantage of Supervisor Mandelman's fourplex bill in an RM-2 zoning district. The project will be a side lot line to side lot line 40 ft building w/ flats.
Hello San Francisco. I'm attending a meeting of the SF Board of Appeals. I am here for an absolutely wild case in which it looks like the City is quite definitely violating the Housing Accountability Act: 1228 Funston St.
A very brief summary: The case involves a permit to legalize an unauthorized unit, add an ADU + horizontal addition, and change the façade. SF Planning initiated a Discretionary Review of this permit application. The Planning Commission then imposed conditions on the permit...
...but it gets a lot more complicated than that. RoDBIGO Santos is involved. This case has stretched on for years. Multiple permits have been filed. Multiple discretionary reviews (DR) are involved.
I have found HCD's corrective action letter to San Francisco. Some quick thoughts.
The first page of the letter says SF has failed to implement required actions 1.2, 1.4, and 1.10 from Housing Policy and Practice Review. SF has also failed to implement housing element action 8.4.5 by July 31. Relevant text attached here.
On action 8.4.5, HCD seems to be taking the date in the action at face value. I had interpreted the deadline to be January 31, 2024, due to a drafting error. But the housing element adopted by SF includes a separate timeline column not included in the modified general plan text.
Hello San Francisco. I'm attending a Board of Appeals hearing for an appeal of the Planning Department's proposed amendment to the Planning Code that would stop the 2700 Sloat housing project—a.k.a. the Sunset Tower.
Teague says this project started as a HOME-SF project [local density bonus program] originally, and it's not anymore.
Teague confirms that the issue is related to the interpretation of Planning Code sections 102 and 270.
Commissioner Trasviña wants to confirm that the public will have more opportunities to appeal a relevant project in the future.
President Swig says there could be "any number of forks in the road" for the direction of this project and paths to appeal it.
Hello San Francisco, I'm at the Park Branch Library attending a pre-application meeting for a housing project at…hold, what's this address? 1846 Grove St? Is that…?
Yes, it's the same project that was cut in half from four units to two by Supervisor Preston at a Board of Supervisors appeal hearing!
Troy, the architect, is introducing the project. He and his partners bought the lot in 2017. In 2018 they proposed five homes, but after meeting with neighbors they made it four.
Good afternoon, San Francisco. I am attending a hearing at the Board of Supervisors on the 2022 housing element update. Supervisor Mar says, "I expect this to be a long hearing." He called for the hearing along with Supervisor Melgar and Supervisor Stefani.
Mar says it's critical that we pass a compliant housing element to keep millionds of $$$ in affordable housing and local control. "The gauntlet the state has thrown our way is immense, but I'm confident we'll rise to the ocassion."
Mar says that the failures of Prop D and Prop E mean that "we cannot get this consensus by fighting each other."