I agree, I love how his videos are informative, entertaining, and (perhaps most importantly) unequivocal in rejecting bad-faith arguments made by reactionaries instead of trying too hard to be “fair.” I’m also a fan of folks like the Not Just Bikes guy, Adam Conover and John Oliver for similar reasons.
That said, I wish I knew of somebody who did these sorts of videos with similar authoritativeness but without the casual/conversational/snarky tone. I want to get people like my baby-boomer parents learning these issues, but they get turned off by the tone and use it as an excuse to not take the arguments being presented seriously.
Personally I like the snark but get turned off by the argument. Focusing on the number of parking spots is somewhat backwards and hostile to the citizen. The number of spots is the effect of poor urban design, not the cause. As someone who has chosen to live in an urban area with good (for the US) transit and look for opportunities to use my car less …. The number of parking spots only determines how frustrated I’ll be, and whether I entertain the idea of moving to the suburbs where things are more convenient. The availability of transit, walking, or other forms of personal transportation is the key. Instead of trying to force better transportation choices by making people miserable, can’t we encourage better transportation choices by making them available? We already have a sizable portion of the population who refuse to use transit because of negative connotations in the past, so you really think more negative connotations are going to help? It’s the parable of the carrot or the stick: us donkeys will be happier with the carrot but might get stubborn when you overuse the stick.
Also I disagree with how videos like this never distinguish which parking spots they want to remove, but treat them all the same. When I lived downtown, do you know what would have had the most impact on me driving less? Having a place to leave my car. Until we have much better options, the reality will continue to be too many cars. Let’s not hide our heads in the sand and pretend that reality doesn’t exist but face it and work with it. Few people are ready to go all or nothing so meet them halfway with a secure spot for their vehicle while building out better options to replace its usage
Focusing on the number of parking spots is somewhat backwards and hostile to the citizen. The number of spots is the effect of poor urban design, not the cause.
No, it really is the cause. Having lots of parking spaces physically forces destinations to be further apart, which is what makes people not want to walk between them. Moreover, the reason those parking spaces got built in the first place is because they were forced to be by having large minimum parking requirements in the zoning code, not because property owners necessarily wanted them. (You can tell because traditional development patterns, which are what you get when there’s no zoning code mandating it be done differently, does not tend to feature large amounts of parking – even when it was built in times well into the automobile era (including the present day in places outside North America where it’s still allowed).
I remember a while back coming across a post about old FHA and/or HUD design guidelines for commercial developments from (I think) 1938. It illustrated perfectly the sort of thing I’m talking about: it literally had side-by-side plan view diagrams with traditional commercial (think “main street” shops with no parking in front, or only on-street parking) labeled “bad” and shopping centers with off-street parking labeled “good.” I wish I could find it again.
Make no mistake: the suburban experimentwasn’t some kind of “natural march of progress” or whatever. It was the result of deliberate policy choices dictated from the top down by the Federal government.
I love visiting town centers with hardly any parking. The whole downtown feels so walkable. Exploring is fun. It’s what the modern suburban “outdoor malls” are trying to replicate artificially all over the USA but it’s so much better when it’s not controlled b a single property owner.
Are you sure we’re not talking about the same thing while seemingly saying opposite?
I love that my town has a “traditional” Main Street and town common. All these great common resources near each other and very walkable. During COViD I started a regular activity with my kids to walk to the common, get takeout from a new Pakistani place, to eat in the Common. Then walk down the street for some Boba or ice cream.
Cars are not a problem. There is some street parking but not much, or my town has been closing the street to cars on summer weekends. I love it.
However there is also plenty of parking, just not where it interferes with people . There are small to medium lots behind the stores along the street, there are garages at the train station and movie theater, a lot at City Hall, etc
I may have a fmdifferent experience than most in the US, where I see both walkability and parking. I see opportunity to travel without car, without making drivers miserable. We don’t have to pick all it nothing
I disagree, transit is hard when everything is so far apart. Cities need to develop first for the transit to follow, not the other way around otherwise they’re doomed to fail. Using the subway in LA is pretty useless compared to NYC because the distance you need to travel is far greater to get to the city center. The transition back to good city design won’t be easy or convenient
They’re calm and don’t come across as snarky in the slightest. They’re really good for reaching across to people who might be more skeptical of urbanist ideas. Easily one of the best urbanist channels out there imo.
No, your idiotic, copro shill funded opinion is not valid. STFU and get educated if you want to be heard. Repeating talking points ur teevee told you to say is not an really your opinion or a valid argument.
You’re not wrong about bad faith actors, but I think it’s important to make a clear distinction between those who act purposefully and maliciously, and those who are genuinely just ignorant but open to learning. It’s not “repeating talking points ur teevee told you” that’s the problem; it’s things like continuing to do so while ignoring counter-arguments as a thread derailment tactic that’s the problem.
I don’t disagree but I’ve tried reasoning with some, for example with boomer… until we started talking money, then you if you asking it about how much taxes its suburban shit hole generates and how much infrastructure suburbs require… it gets visibly uncomfortable, and changes the topic. That’s bad faith.
Yeah, I know what you mean. On the bright side, if you’re making them visibly uncomfortable it means you’re getting through to them, even if they don’t want to admit it. On some level, that’s still a win!
I agree, I love how his videos are informative, entertaining, and (perhaps most importantly) unequivocal in rejecting bad-faith arguments made by reactionaries instead of trying too hard to be “fair.” I’m also a fan of folks like the Not Just Bikes guy, Adam Conover and John Oliver for similar reasons.
That said, I wish I knew of somebody who did these sorts of videos with similar authoritativeness but without the casual/conversational/snarky tone. I want to get people like my baby-boomer parents learning these issues, but they get turned off by the tone and use it as an excuse to not take the arguments being presented seriously.
Personally I like the snark but get turned off by the argument. Focusing on the number of parking spots is somewhat backwards and hostile to the citizen. The number of spots is the effect of poor urban design, not the cause. As someone who has chosen to live in an urban area with good (for the US) transit and look for opportunities to use my car less …. The number of parking spots only determines how frustrated I’ll be, and whether I entertain the idea of moving to the suburbs where things are more convenient. The availability of transit, walking, or other forms of personal transportation is the key. Instead of trying to force better transportation choices by making people miserable, can’t we encourage better transportation choices by making them available? We already have a sizable portion of the population who refuse to use transit because of negative connotations in the past, so you really think more negative connotations are going to help? It’s the parable of the carrot or the stick: us donkeys will be happier with the carrot but might get stubborn when you overuse the stick.
Also I disagree with how videos like this never distinguish which parking spots they want to remove, but treat them all the same. When I lived downtown, do you know what would have had the most impact on me driving less? Having a place to leave my car. Until we have much better options, the reality will continue to be too many cars. Let’s not hide our heads in the sand and pretend that reality doesn’t exist but face it and work with it. Few people are ready to go all or nothing so meet them halfway with a secure spot for their vehicle while building out better options to replace its usage
No, it really is the cause. Having lots of parking spaces physically forces destinations to be further apart, which is what makes people not want to walk between them. Moreover, the reason those parking spaces got built in the first place is because they were forced to be by having large minimum parking requirements in the zoning code, not because property owners necessarily wanted them. (You can tell because traditional development patterns, which are what you get when there’s no zoning code mandating it be done differently, does not tend to feature large amounts of parking – even when it was built in times well into the automobile era (including the present day in places outside North America where it’s still allowed).
I remember a while back coming across a post about old FHA and/or HUD design guidelines for commercial developments from (I think) 1938. It illustrated perfectly the sort of thing I’m talking about: it literally had side-by-side plan view diagrams with traditional commercial (think “main street” shops with no parking in front, or only on-street parking) labeled “bad” and shopping centers with off-street parking labeled “good.” I wish I could find it again.
Make no mistake: the suburban experiment wasn’t some kind of “natural march of progress” or whatever. It was the result of deliberate policy choices dictated from the top down by the Federal government.
I love visiting town centers with hardly any parking. The whole downtown feels so walkable. Exploring is fun. It’s what the modern suburban “outdoor malls” are trying to replicate artificially all over the USA but it’s so much better when it’s not controlled b a single property owner.
Are you sure we’re not talking about the same thing while seemingly saying opposite?
I love that my town has a “traditional” Main Street and town common. All these great common resources near each other and very walkable. During COViD I started a regular activity with my kids to walk to the common, get takeout from a new Pakistani place, to eat in the Common. Then walk down the street for some Boba or ice cream.
Cars are not a problem. There is some street parking but not much, or my town has been closing the street to cars on summer weekends. I love it.
However there is also plenty of parking, just not where it interferes with people . There are small to medium lots behind the stores along the street, there are garages at the train station and movie theater, a lot at City Hall, etc
I may have a fmdifferent experience than most in the US, where I see both walkability and parking. I see opportunity to travel without car, without making drivers miserable. We don’t have to pick all it nothing
did you actually watch the video?
I disagree, transit is hard when everything is so far apart. Cities need to develop first for the transit to follow, not the other way around otherwise they’re doomed to fail. Using the subway in LA is pretty useless compared to NYC because the distance you need to travel is far greater to get to the city center. The transition back to good city design won’t be easy or convenient
💀
Seconded.
Thirdeded
Oh the Urbanity!
They’re calm and don’t come across as snarky in the slightest. They’re really good for reaching across to people who might be more skeptical of urbanist ideas. Easily one of the best urbanist channels out there imo.
We got to stop giving bad faith actors platforms…
No, your idiotic, copro shill funded opinion is not valid. STFU and get educated if you want to be heard. Repeating talking points ur teevee told you to say is not an really your opinion or a valid argument.
You’re not wrong about bad faith actors, but I think it’s important to make a clear distinction between those who act purposefully and maliciously, and those who are genuinely just ignorant but open to learning. It’s not “repeating talking points ur teevee told you” that’s the problem; it’s things like continuing to do so while ignoring counter-arguments as a thread derailment tactic that’s the problem.
I don’t disagree but I’ve tried reasoning with some, for example with boomer… until we started talking money, then you if you asking it about how much taxes its suburban shit hole generates and how much infrastructure suburbs require… it gets visibly uncomfortable, and changes the topic. That’s bad faith.
Yeah, I know what you mean. On the bright side, if you’re making them visibly uncomfortable it means you’re getting through to them, even if they don’t want to admit it. On some level, that’s still a win!