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

[Markass the Worst]

Who exactly is "reasonable"? The urbanists will point to Marohn and call him "reasonable" or even "conservative".

They call him reasonable because he's just as bad as the rest of them. He's "reasonable" because he thinks America can be saved from the horrors of car dependency, whereas Jason Slaughter thinks all of it is a write-off and must be demolished to have any chance of hope.

They do call him conservative but this is probably in the sense that he's a fiscal conservative (his whole shtick about how suburbs are financially insolvent and are all crumbling to dust). He's not a conservative in any meaningful sense.

 

[teriyakiburns]

So all this talk of cities being depressing reminded me of a short story I read once, a long time ago. J G Ballard's The Concentration City. It's an urbanist's wet dream. An endless city where most people never leave their locality, with mass transit to traverse it and no personal transport to speak of.

 

[Xarpho's Return]

bro I literally only meant that recognizing that people have different needs and local governments should plan for that is a level above all the reddit faggots who think we should all live in a pod-person apartment and rely on public transit.

WTF was that spergout about an array of issues that only tangentially relate to urbanism lmao

The point being that people have called Marohn "conservative" but he's not conservative in any way that would fit into American "conservative" politics, and subscribes to zero conservative talking points.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

America is the third largest country on earth, yet literally every single town and city are car dependent. You have to own a car to live a good lifestyle in America. I don't think I have a controversial opinion when it comes to this, I just think that we should have some diversity in our residential areas. If someone wants to live in a suburb, they should have that option. If someone wants to live in an Amsterdam type walkable city, they should have that option. And they should have the option to live in every type of urban area in between. Why should I be forced to move to another country to find somewhere that suits my autistic living specifications? We have the space. America is supposedly the land of the free, but your choice in where you can live is very limited. You have 2 options: live in a suburb or get gang raped by niggers, nothing else.

tl;dr i want to live in a commieblock but the US gov wont let me

 

[Blatant hypocrite]

America is the third largest country on earth, yet literally every single town and city are car dependent. You have to own a car to live a good lifestyle in America. I don't think I have a controversial opinion when it comes to this, I just think that we should have some diversity in our residential areas. If someone wants to live in a suburb, they should have that option. If someone wants to live in an Amsterdam type walkable city, they should have that option. And they should have the option to live in every type of urban area in between. Why should I be forced to move to another country to find somewhere that suits my autistic living specifications? We have the space. America is supposedly the land of the free, but your choice in where you can live is very limited. You have 2 options: live in a suburb or get gang raped by niggers, nothing else.

tl;dr i want to live in a commieblock but the US gov wont let me

Just go to New York or Chicago then?
edit: wait nvm I didn't see the bit where you don't want to get gang raped by niggers

 

[quaawaa]

America is the third largest country on earth, yet literally every single town and city are car dependent. You have to own a car to live a good lifestyle in America. I don't think I have a controversial opinion when it comes to this, I just think that we should have some diversity in our residential areas. If someone wants to live in a suburb, they should have that option. If someone wants to live in an Amsterdam type walkable city, they should have that option. And they should have the option to live in every type of urban area in between. Why should I be forced to move to another country to find somewhere that suits my autistic living specifications? We have the space. America is supposedly the land of the free, but your choice in where you can live is very limited. You have 2 options: live in a suburb or get gang raped by niggers, nothing else.

tl;dr i want to live in a commieblock but the US gov wont let me

You don’t have to leave the country. Every small town is walkable by definition and every big city, even the sprawling sunbelt ones, has large walkable areas. NYC and Chicago are the obvious examples, but even the sprawling sunbelt cities have parts that are walkable. Every college town has a walkable area near campus. Cities like Seattle, Portland, and many other cities are trying their darnedest to copy (their vision of) European cities and have greatly reduced the size of roads and banned new parking and single family houses. Boston literally looks like a European city with 18th century buildings on narrow winding roads interspersed by skyscrapers. There are many more examples, yet you proclaim that they don’t exist and you have to leave the country to find a walkable neighborhood.

Why don’t you move to one of the many places in the country that already meets your standards instead of trying to make every other place meet them? If for some reason none of them do, why don’t you and some likeminded friends buy some rural land and build your dream city?

 

[Xarpho's Return]

Just go to New York or Chicago then?
edit: wait nvm I didn't see the bit where you don't want to get gang raped by niggers
View attachment 4937352

The source is "Oliver Wyman Forums". I'd like to thank an anon on /n/ for giving us more of this "source".

 

[DumbDude43]

tl;dr i want to live in a commieblock but the US gov wont let me

of course it lets you
they're called "the projects" and you can move there right now if you want to. cheap, too!

 

[talk talk talk]

Every small town is walkable by definition

Well, no. They are quickly abandoning that (except for cute touristy ones)

Small towns that are surviving have done so by building Walmarts out at the edge of town and surrounding them with satellite strip malls. The resulting development is indistinguishable from what you find in suburban retail development. The old downtown fades away.

After the WalMart fully depreciates in 28 years, Walmart abandons it. The small town is left with a big old building designed for one use and the infrastructure (roads, sewer, water) it built to service that WalMart.

 

[Xarpho's Return]

America is the third largest country on earth, yet literally every single town and city are car dependent. You have to own a car to live a good lifestyle in America. I don't think I have a controversial opinion when it comes to this, I just think that we should have some diversity in our residential areas. If someone wants to live in a suburb, they should have that option. If someone wants to live in an Amsterdam type walkable city, they should have that option. And they should have the option to live in every type of urban area in between. Why should I be forced to move to another country to find somewhere that suits my autistic living specifications? We have the space. America is supposedly the land of the free, but your choice in where you can live is very limited. You have 2 options: live in a suburb or get gang raped by niggers, nothing else.

tl;dr i want to live in a commieblock but the US gov wont let me

Stop being overdramatic and buying into urbanists' bullshit. The first thing to realize that "walkable city" is a vaguely defined term that can range from "everyone should be able to walk to the grocery store" to "reeeeee there are cars here". Just take into account the following:

- With only a handful of exceptions (Manhattan during the daytime, etc.) a car will always be faster than mass transit, even in Europe (longer commute times).
- Urbanists will pretend that only single family homes exist in the suburbs. That simply isn't true, and many of the apartment complexes in suburbs WILL be near major stores.
- You will not inherently find community in density.
- All of "Amsterdam" is not Amsterdam-Centrum which is where Jason lives and is often shilled. Amsterdam-Centrum is very expensive.
- A mild climate year-round is almost impossible to find and not cheap, and cycling when it rains is going to suck.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Oh man, I love the powerglove! It's so bad!

 

[LaxerBRO]

New Daily Rake covering more of Strong Towns' "Ponzi scheme" theory:

PSA: Deboonking the Traffic Soyboys Part 27 – These aren't the Ponzi Scheme Case Studies you're Looking for - The Daily Rake

The last piece was supposed to be this piece, but I had to unleash a long pent-up rant at the traffic antifas demanding that you subsidize their pet projects, while they apply capitalist hyperscrutiny to any possible subsidy that net taxpaying White People in small towns and suburbs might be...

dailyrake.ca

(archive)

Just wanted to point out that the waste water treatment facility that is touted by the urbanist crowd of suburbs rural small towns being in economic difficulties was likely funded LBJ and his Great Societies Project as part of a jobs program.

This is similar to the Bridge to Nowhere project supported by liberals during the Obama administration.

I opposed these project but apparently I was a greedy Republican that doesn't care about the poor. Also, I will point out that that most rural people are practical and aware of these future costs. Hence, they OPPOSE shit like sidewalks, on/off ramps for the local highway, stop lights, or other expensive civil infrastructure projects.

In a previous post, there was discussion on how a semi-rural area in Tennessee / Kentucky was not walkable for a Ukrainian refugee. I pointed out that based on population density, a sidewalk is not ideal for the area and the criticism from the NJB sub reddit was not justified.

But now, these criticisms (of not having sidewalks) go out the window when Jason or Adam something applies their selective criticisms of capitalism.

 

[SwanSwanson]

I have been thinking about notjustbikes comment on how America is a "lost cause" in regards to infrastructure, and he's wrong on every level. He of all people should know about the reversals other countries have done to their city structures and it's a fact that America could easily become walk-based just by changing rules in regards to suburbs, just allowing people to run businesses outside their homes and allowing different types of buildings to be set up around suburbs.

What I'm trying to explain is that the reason he thinks this is because he thinks his political opponents, the SUV drivers he hates so much deserve their unhappy fate and it should stay like that for them. His whole channel isn't trying to change anything, it's just him showing off efficient liberal governance and disparaging drivers for not considering the humanity of others while doing the same himself.

 

[Tealeaf]

Stop being overdramatic and buying into urbanists' bullshit. The first thing to realize that "walkable city" is a vaguely defined term that can range from "everyone should be able to walk to the grocery store" to "reeeeee there are cars here". Just take into account the following:

- With only a handful of exceptions (Manhattan during the daytime, etc.) a car will always be faster than mass transit, even in Europe (longer commute times).
- Urbanists will pretend that only single family homes exist in the suburbs. That simply isn't true, and many of the apartment complexes in suburbs WILL be near major stores.
- You will not inherently find community in density.
- All of "Amsterdam" is not Amsterdam-Centrum which is where Jason lives and is often shilled. Amsterdam-Centrum is very expensive.
- A mild climate year-round is almost impossible to find and not cheap, and cycling when it rains is going to suck.

- Cars are faster if the built environment is designed around cars and their speedy movement and absolutely everything else takes the backseat. You can also design the built environment around walking getting you where you want quickly and comfortably, but you can’t do it together with a lot of cars, or have them go fast. You have to pick what you prioritize.
- Suburban low density apartment complexes are awful, though. They’re cheaper, inferior alternatives for those unfortunate enough to not afford a real single family home in the neighbourhood. You could use the same building blocks to make a nice downtown, oh well.
- Having a more pleasant place to be in won’t hurt community making, though.
- Yes exactly, scarcity of nice urban places is a problem in Europe, too. Even (/especially) in the Netherlands. The old continent might be in a somewhat better shape than America (largely due to old towns…), but that doesn’t make it perfect, or even good.
- There are a lot of comfortable climates out there if you consider that you can use season and weather appropriate outerwear. You’re going to have an awful time in any season and weather, regardless of how comfortable your outfit is if you don’t have any practical destinations you can walk or bike to. I guess you can always jog or bike a circuit for the sake of exercise after you’re done driving your errands for the day.

 

[SwanSwanson]

Stop being overdramatic and buying into urbanists' bullshit. The first thing to realize that "walkable city" is a vaguely defined term that can range from "everyone should be able to walk to the grocery store" to "reeeeee there are cars here". Just take into account the following:

- With only a handful of exceptions (Manhattan during the daytime, etc.) a car will always be faster than mass transit, even in Europe (longer commute times).
- Urbanists will pretend that only single family homes exist in the suburbs. That simply isn't true, and many of the apartment complexes in suburbs WILL be near major stores.
- You will not inherently find community in density.
- All of "Amsterdam" is not Amsterdam-Centrum which is where Jason lives and is often shilled. Amsterdam-Centrum is very expensive.
- A mild climate year-round is almost impossible to find and not cheap, and cycling when it rains is going to suck.

Any downsides of normally designed cities are completely overshadowed by the sense of beauty and humanity that come with walkable cities

 

[quaawaa]

Any downsides of normally designed cities are completely overshadowed by the sense of beauty and humanity that come with walkable cities

Is the joke that the second picture is of a suburban mall?

 

[Blatant hypocrite]

- Cars are faster if the built environment is designed around cars and their speedy movement and absolutely everything else takes the backseat.

Here we go again...

Let's pick two random points in the middle of fucking Amsterdam

16 minutes by car, 35min by transit, 30min by cycle, 1 hour 44 minutes by foot.

But Amsterdam is probably designed around cars anyway. Let's try Tokyo.

It's 9am in Tokyo, hence the traffic conditions. And yet, driving a car is faster than any other option.

Fine, let's try Manhattan.

Whoa - taking the subway is only 5 minutes slower in this one. That's pretty good, but the car still wins. How do they keep doing this?

 

[Xarpho's Return]

Any downsides of normally designed cities are completely overshadowed by the sense of beauty and humanity that come with walkable cities

Sure, use the exact same meme picture of a wide-angle shot that covers 5 miles.

Get better material.

 

[LaxerBRO]

tl;dr i want to live in a commieblock but the US gov wont let me

You can live in the new housing projects that are being redeveloped from Jordan Downs.

After the WalMart fully depreciates in 28 years, Walmart abandons it. The small town is left with a big old building designed for one use and the infrastructure (roads, sewer, water) it built to service that WalMart.

Is this where the Wal-Mart and the town get into a pissing match over property taxes based on assessed value and the Wal-Mart just leaves, when their estimate is denied? I just don't think Wal-Mart would abandon a profitable location. It could be that the regional lost major employers or a number of medium sized ones thereby lowering the population and ultimately profits.

Why should I be forced to move to another country to find somewhere that suits my autistic living specifications?

You don't.

You can move to the New England area. Many of the towns developed before cars so its walkable. Hell, the town of Littleton, NH seems pretty lively.

 

[Xarpho's Return]

After the WalMart fully depreciates in 28 years, Walmart abandons it. The small town is left with a big old building designed for one use and the infrastructure (roads, sewer, water) it built to service that WalMart.

28 years? Where are you getting these numbers? Some of the old ones have spent less than 10 years before they get replaced with a Supercenter, while a few have been kicking around since the early 1980s and still get money put into them.