The cars are still there, in massive numbers. You just can’t see the tunnel they built between those two pictures. It’s right beneath the feet of the pedestrians.
At least they can´t kill cyclists and pedestrians this way and the emissions get somewhat contained. Of course this is only a compromise but on the way to car free cities it might be a useful intermediate step before we can actually get rid of carbrainitis.
The Gardiner in Toronto desperately needs to be pulled down (before people die) and replaced with tunnels.
The viaduct in Vancouver is being torn down but I don’t think they plan to build a tunnel. It’s the fastest way into downtown from East Van.
The difference between these inevitable projects and Dusseldorf is that property value in Canadian cities is so insane that developers will likely push for the construction of biggest types yet in these cities.
Titles are OP not realizing that the roads have been moved underground and are still there even though the picture doesn’t suit his metropolitan dystopia thematic preferences. Or at least that’s the only way they make sense.
As opposed to trying to frame everything into the left-right pantheon? Did treating this as a completely separate environmental / city planning concern hurt people’s brain?
It’s a bit vain to want it at the expense of logical city planning. If the destruction of that road caused major traffic issues or inhibited road access to areas, that would explain why OP added quotes.
Logical city planning is planning a city in such a way that provides the greatest overall loving experience to it’s inhabitants and passers-through.
This depends on the location of the city. Traffic prevention and green spaces are 2 things that need to be balanced. If a road that thousands travel on daily is being demolished to make way for a park that a few hundred people will maybe use, then it could be doing more harm than good.
This is ultimately a decision for communities to make, not us armchair planners, and it looks like they valued the park more.
By your own definition “logical city planning” is best done with a good and well integrated public transportation network and the spaces thus freed by having fewer cars being repurposed for uses with proven health benefits compared to roads … which just happen to be green spaces as there are actual proven benefits for human mental and physical health, both from the greenery and the reduction in noise an particulate polution when big roads with heavy traffic are removed.
Favoring individual cars in a urban environment is actually worse in pretty much every metric: not just mental and physical health but even timewise as better public transportation means way less time wasted in traffic jams, because of all the cars removed from the road and because paradoxically more roads incentivise more cars, so new/bigger roads solve traffic jam problem for a while and then eventualyl it get as bad or worse than before only now there are even more cars, hence more people, stuck in traffic, so more public transportation means shorter commuting times even when you reduce the number/size of roads.
I get the impression that your logic in thinking of more roads for cars as “logical city planning” comes from never having experienced living in an urban setting with a proper well integrated public transport network or widespread use of cycling for short commutes, which is a critical blindspot in knowledge when claiming to understand urban planning.
“Logical city planning” for you does not include planning a city that people enjoy living and breathing in. Just one that cars dominate more every year.
After WW2 cities in NRW have been rebuilt with cars and cars only in mind. You’ve got major roads with 6 lanes crossing right through city centres and residential areas. Traffic is killing people. Roads in favor of public transport makes people buy cars if they want to go anywhere. More cars need more roads. It’s an endless cycle and results in hostile living environments. We need less cars. A lot less.
That’s how I feel about SoCal. I noticed on Google Maps a lot of homes are taking up the sea cliffs south of LA. I always thought that all coastline in CA was public…
mildlyinteresting
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.