Not Just Bikes / r/fuckcars / Urbanists / New Urbanism / Car-Free / Anti-Car - People and grifters who hate personal transport, freedom, cars, roads, suburbs, and are obsessed with city planning and urban design

You're just a few jumps in ideology removed from incels, congrats.
The quoted post is a troll. /u/burndowntheburbs is permanently suspended from reddit, and a name like that isn't something that'd be used by a normal person. You missed the line about romantic partners in there; the troll called /r/fuckcars and friends incels and none of them noticed.
 
The quoted post is a troll. /u/burndowntheburbs is permanently suspended from reddit, and a name like that isn't something that'd be used by a normal person. You missed the line about romantic partners in there; the troll called /r/fuckcars and friends incels and none of them noticed.
Honestly? Didn't even bother reading the quoted post. I gave it a skim but I figured it was the same song and dance I've heard from these people a thousand times.
 
Jason got a shoutout from Trudeau's mouthpiece, the CBC.

From 'car-dependent hellscapes' to green cities, Canadians find new ways to fight climate change​

To balance the books, Canadian cities make like Europe where going car-free is easy​

Don Pittis · CBC News · Posted: Nov 21, 2022 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: November 21
1669106769025.png
While many cities across Canada sprawl out over farmland, a few, like Ontario's Waterloo Region, are making their communities more livable and climate friendly with smart public transit and concentrated development. (Don Pittis/CBC News)

Canadians pondering their household finances know that there are always more ideas about how to spend money than there is money to spend.

That universal economic principle was conspicuous at COP27, the latest version of the United Nations conference on climate change that went into overtime this weekend in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. A long list of competing demands for that cash included compensation for climate damage, biodiversity loss and winding down the use of fossil fuels.

As governments at all levels consider the wisest use of tax revenue to avert a global climate catastrophe, there is growing evidence that urban development — that is, how Canada builds out its cities to accommodate an expanding population — is the cornerstone of long-term climate policy.

And while disheartened critics worry that car-centric urban sprawl still underway cannot be stopped, there are new glimmers of hope as a growing wave of low-carbon, high-density, tax-efficient, people-friendly city-building shows signs of spreading.
"If we care about climate change, we need to make it easier to walk, cycle or use public transit. Period," said Jason Slaughter, a vigorous critic of automobile-centric urban development, who grew up in suburban London, Ont. Until he got a driver's licence at the age of 16, he said, he was trapped in what he calls a "car-dependent hellscape."
Our conversation was by email, partly because Slaughter's YouTube channel Not Just Bikes, a wry and sometimes hilarious collection of sophisticated videos about urban design that has received millions of views keeps him busy, but also because he's in a different time zone. A famous Canadian export, he is a refugee from Canadian urban sprawl.

1669106883760.png
A graphic created by the urban design company Urban3 for Lafayette, La. The upward spikes in densely urbanized parts of the city show areas of high tax productivity. The downward spikes are in widely spaced suburban developments, where revenues show a net cost to taxpayers. (Urban3)

"I fundamentally do not believe that Canadian cities will materially change within my lifetime, which is exactly why we gave up on Canada," said Slaughter in our exchange last week. "That's literally why our family left Canada to live in the Netherlands, permanently."

The shock value of that despairing comment is typical, but it is belied by his opus that includes hits like Why I Hate Houston, an attack on the widening of Wonderland Road in his hometown ("Fake London" as he describes it for his international audience) and what some considered an unfair critique of Mississauga, Ontario's half-billion-dollar BRT system.

While written and delivered in a droll, contemptuous style, Slaughter's well-researched and well-produced videos, often in association with the U.S. non-profit Strong Towns, provide an accessible lesson in what's not working in North American cities and, using his current home in the Netherlands as a counter-example, how North American cities need to change.

Tetris with too many squares

And while the task of turning the Titanic that is the current development model is enormous, there are signs that the seed Slaughter and others have planted is beginning to take root. That's especially true in Canada's biggest cities, simply as a matter of necessity, said David Gordon, a specialist in urban planning at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont.

"You cannot build a big city out of single detached houses with everybody driving," said Gordon on the phone last week as the COP27 conference was winding up.
He said that the urban centres of Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto have done a much better job than U.S. cities, where government funding structures have created downtown "inner city" blight that is unfamiliar in Canada's vibrant and pricey urban cores.

1669106994996.png
Cars fill the highway to Vancouver International Airport. Canadians dream of detached houses and the freedom to drive on empty roads, but across North America, that's not the way things turned out. (CBC)

For about 60 years Canadians have imagined the perfect Leave it to Beaver lifestyle as "a detached house where you can drive everywhere on uncongested streets," said Gordon, but like a giant game of Tetris containing too many squares, continuous suburban sprawl results in traffic gridlock.

Gordon's research shows the suburban sprawl model persists in medium-sized cities and outside urban cores partly because they have not yet reached the saturation point, but also because the model, including subsidies from existing provincial taxpayers, offers lucrative short-term profits for developers.

But as work by the Edmonton-based global design and engineering giant Stantec and others have shown, in the longer term, sprawl can lead to municipal government bankruptcy.

Suburbs don't pay

It is a difficult lesson learned by a number of U.S. cities that have simply run out of money to pay for crucial infrastructure repairs.

What Stantec's research for the city of Halifax showed, wonderfully illustrated by graphics produced by the urban design group Urban3, is that relatively crowded walkable downtown parts of a city produce huge amounts of tax revenue, whereas suburban low-density areas result in a net tax cost.

"A lot of our services are delivered on the linear foot, so the more you expand outward, the more pipe you have to run, the further your buses have to go, the further your waste delivery has to go," said Kate Greene, Halifax director of regional planning.

1669107055470.png
Following a plan by Edmonton's Stantec that demonstrated the high cost of sprawl, and with the support of Mayor Mike Savage, Halifax has become a leader in smart, green, pedestrian-friendly growth. (Halifax Regional Municipality)

What the tax productivity data shows is that "rich-people housing" with big lots and plenty of room for cars, which were subsidized when the neighbourhood was developed, continue to be subsidized throughout their long existence. Suburban single-family houses on big lots simply do not cover the municipal expense of things like repairing all that asphalt and clearing all that snow.

And in Halifax, turning itself into a relatively compact, walkable, climate-friendly city and shunning sprawl has become embedded in all planning decisions right up to the mayor's office.
"Our city is committed to economically and environmentally sustainable growth," said Halifax Mayor Mike Savage last week in an email. And it's not just hot air, outside experts like Gordon say Savage has been making it happen.

In the city of Guelph, the only Canadian municipality to be analyzed by Urban3, the city's senior urban designer David de Groot said the analysis came as a revelation. What it showed was that even the poorest areas of the urban centre provided vastly more municipal revenue than the sprawling fringes where the city had been spending its development resources.

WATCH | Visualizing the cost of development as cities sprawl:

The city has a beautiful, well-preserved downtown on a river that once powered its mills, and de Groot said since its first Urban3 study in 2014, Guelph has encouraged low- and medium-rise development in the core that has made it an increasingly vibrant place to live, work and visit.

"For its long-term sustainability, adding more people to the downtown was a critical direction for the city," said de Groot.

And decisions about today's development have effects that far outlast the profits of the developers.

Tax efficient equals green

"Land use planning affects the tax efficiency of communities and the energy efficiency of communities for decades, possibly centuries," said Kate Daley, Waterloo Region's designated expert on environmental sustainability.

The Ontario regional municipality spreads from the historic town of Galt north along the path of the Grand River, straddles Highway 401, and includes two of Canada's most prestigious universities as well as a lot of rural farmland — but it has adopted a development strategy that would not be entirely out of place in Slaughter's Europe.

As part of its goal to preserve farmland and green space, all connected by a central transit rail corridor where "The Ion" LRT runs, the region reached consensus last year on a plan called Transform WR to build a "15-minute city," where everything is accessible by foot, by bike or by public transit. The strategy, the exact opposite of car-centric sprawl, intends to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
Daley wrote a book-length dissertation in 2017 describing what it was about Waterloo region — its people and its government — that allowed it to overcome popular dissent and the Ontario Municipal Board in order to "embrace smart growth policies" and new green growth.

Now that she is a regional employee, Daley said that kind of talk is off limits.

But she says the move to block sprawl has been a community-building exercise, and it has allowed the region to launch strategies that will be of interest to larger cities where car-dependence stands in the way of green innovation.

"Figuring out how to use future development and particularly intensification, to retrofit existing neighbourhoods into 15-minute neighbourhoods," said Daley, "that, I would say, is the bigger challenge."
The article (archive) has almost 3000 comments. The top rated comments are not in favor of the live-in-the-pod lifestyle that Jason, the CBC, and Trudeau and his WEF masters want:
1669107311675.png
1669107354262.png
1669107369913.png
1669107382423.png
1669107342352.png
1669107389832.png
1669107410139.png
1669107419252.png
1669107428926.png
1669107439068.png
1669107447810.png
1669107461528.png
1669107473842.png
1669107483828.png
1669107511905.png
1669107528019.png
Predicably, /r/notjustbikes (archive) isn't happy about the reception their prophet received:
1669107743642.png
 
Jason got a shoutout from Trudeau's mouthpiece, the CBC.
Oh god. Not only is it him but it's also Strong Towns by proxy since it's just citing his ST video and the super misleading Urban3 graph that purportedly shows suburbia is bankrupt or whatever.
 
So what's their solution for transportation of resources across state lines? Horse and buggy?
 
Oh god. Not only is it him but it's also Strong Towns by proxy since it's just citing his ST video and the super misleading Urban3 graph that purportedly shows suburbia is bankrupt or whatever.
Has anyone done a breakdown on why Urban3 is misleading? Genuinely curious.
 
/r/fuckcars discusses whether or not bike cops are better than car cops. They are divided between people who believe that bikes automatically make people better behaved and antifa who mindlessly hate all cops.
1669171283016.png
1669171290701.png
1669171316580.png
1669171562121.png
1669171577477.png
1669171737330.png
1669171336557.png
1669171353111.png
Unsurprisingly, there are a lot of ACAB people:
1669171617869.png
1669171632719.png
1669171647642.png
1669171688835.png
1669171700045.png
1669171420193.png
1669171446771.png
1669171465564.png
1669171509899.png
1669171587485.png
Source (Archive)

Has anyone done a breakdown on why Urban3 is misleading? Genuinely curious.
There was one somewhere in the thread but basically it comes down to cherry-picking a single example and ignoring obvious factors.
Maybe this post?

I don't know much about Urban3 specifically, but the two major issues that urbanists make with their financial analyses are that they never look at city budgets to find out what the actual costs are and that despite constantly preaching that we need to "build cities for people, not cars", they don't realize that people pay taxes, not buildings. They live in an made up world where low-density infrastructure costs way more than it actually does and where high density infrastructure is cheaper due to the power of division (ignoring issues like the complexities of building in a dense environment and corruption). They're also very evasive as to what a subsidy is; typically they'll claim that cars and suburbs have enormous amounts of untaxed "externalities" while handwaving away explicit transit subsidies and developer incentives as being necessary for the public good. Property taxes on office buildings are a "subsidy" for city centers paid for by suburban commuters who contribute money but don't consume any services; I've never seen an urbanist mention them.

City centers and their suburbs are so intertwined I doubt it's possible to accurately figure out who is subsidizing who, but it's likely that regardless of density, middle-class and above areas are self-funding and subsidize poorer areas due to the progressive nature of the tax system.
 
Another interesting thing is to watch how urbanists behave when confronted with the fact that remote work is infinitely more environmentally friendly than commuting to work in an office building by transit. They get as squirrely as a climate change cultist does when asked why we can't build more nuclear power plants and keep our comfy lifestyles.
1669173985599.png
1669174012495.png
1669174062207.png
1669174110895.png
1669174138225.png
1669174203568.png
1669174226814.png
Source (Archive)

All of their environmental/financial/social/etc. arguments are post hoc and not made in good faith. They want you to live in the pod and they will say anything to try and convince you to do so and they won't accept you working around the "issues" that they point out.
 
He also doesn't mention the most popular Third Place of all time: the Church.

The idea of a church is like kryptonite to these subhumans, even if many people that go to church are just "Sunday Christians" at best.

A greater power who created the Earth and is a loving and forgiving God? Nonsense, must drink overpriced PBRs and commiserate on how cars and capitalism are evil and must be overthrown.
 
Back