The irony being, of course that a true “conservative” that cleaved to the values they claim to care about would absolutely want this kind of car-light/car-free downtown.
Time and time again, complete streets and walkable cities are shown to save huge money on the city budget. They cost so much less to maintain and they boost economic productivity so much. The return on investment is just immense compared to car-intensive infrastructure. There’s a reason a city like Houston has something like double the per capita spend on transportation of a city like NYC in spite of NYC’s massive subway system and there’s a reason NYC has something like double the per capita spend on transportation to Amsterdam with its vast networks of bike paths and trains. Car-intensive infrastructure is crazy expensive to maintain. It’s unfrugal madness.
And for the non-financial side, car-intensive civic design still doesn’t qualify as “conservative”. Having car-intensive design requires a huge, top-down approach to urban planning where the city tries to plan every aspect of its citizens lives. Plan for them and fit them into figurative boxes in order to make the literal boxes practical to use. It’s practically authoritarian. It’s a violation of the traditional values of cities which grew slowly and organically, adapting to the changing needs of their citizens through work done typically by those very citizens’ hands.
Switching urban planning models to a car-first approach led to a lot of the other problems of modern cities, including the fact that small-scale/neighborhood developers have been all but run out of business by huge outsider development firms that refuse to build anything other than huge exurban sub-developments and luxury condos. Conservatives should be there to resist and reject this total upending of normal development of society, but they make money off of it so stay mum.
Buddy, no one here is confused that conservatives represent nothing in particular but whatever is going get them power and profit. I began blacklisting libertarians after years of arguments with a few in RL. Now I’m blacklisting conservatives without arguing.
You’ll never convince a conservative they’re being a hypocrite, but you can arm as many reasonable people as possible with arguments they can use to convince their dumbass aunts, dads, cousins, and friends to show up and vote against evil. At least that’s my hope.
But it is also philosophically of interest to me that Strong Towns should be considered the very model of a modern Conservative political force while they are widely considered in pop culture to be WAY far left. The fact that being “conservative” today means having feelings-based political motivations and rejecting evidence-based approaches as its core precepts makes me tired and sad.
When I think about it, dirty socialist policies often have lower costs than “conservative” ones. For example housing people from the street is cheaper than having them live in encampments. Right to repair is cheaper than planned obsolescence. Cheaper for the majority that is. 🥲
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
The irony being, of course that a true “conservative” that cleaved to the values they claim to care about would absolutely want this kind of car-light/car-free downtown.
Time and time again, complete streets and walkable cities are shown to save huge money on the city budget. They cost so much less to maintain and they boost economic productivity so much. The return on investment is just immense compared to car-intensive infrastructure. There’s a reason a city like Houston has something like double the per capita spend on transportation of a city like NYC in spite of NYC’s massive subway system and there’s a reason NYC has something like double the per capita spend on transportation to Amsterdam with its vast networks of bike paths and trains. Car-intensive infrastructure is crazy expensive to maintain. It’s unfrugal madness.
And for the non-financial side, car-intensive civic design still doesn’t qualify as “conservative”. Having car-intensive design requires a huge, top-down approach to urban planning where the city tries to plan every aspect of its citizens lives. Plan for them and fit them into figurative boxes in order to make the literal boxes practical to use. It’s practically authoritarian. It’s a violation of the traditional values of cities which grew slowly and organically, adapting to the changing needs of their citizens through work done typically by those very citizens’ hands.
Switching urban planning models to a car-first approach led to a lot of the other problems of modern cities, including the fact that small-scale/neighborhood developers have been all but run out of business by huge outsider development firms that refuse to build anything other than huge exurban sub-developments and luxury condos. Conservatives should be there to resist and reject this total upending of normal development of society, but they make money off of it so stay mum.
Buddy, no one here is confused that conservatives represent nothing in particular but whatever is going get them power and profit. I began blacklisting libertarians after years of arguments with a few in RL. Now I’m blacklisting conservatives without arguing.
You’ll never convince a conservative they’re being a hypocrite, but you can arm as many reasonable people as possible with arguments they can use to convince their dumbass aunts, dads, cousins, and friends to show up and vote against evil. At least that’s my hope.
But it is also philosophically of interest to me that Strong Towns should be considered the very model of a modern Conservative political force while they are widely considered in pop culture to be WAY far left. The fact that being “conservative” today means having feelings-based political motivations and rejecting evidence-based approaches as its core precepts makes me tired and sad.
When I think about it, dirty socialist policies often have lower costs than “conservative” ones. For example housing people from the street is cheaper than having them live in encampments. Right to repair is cheaper than planned obsolescence. Cheaper for the majority that is. 🥲
deleted by creator
Try reading what I wrote next time instead of just projecting all this hostility at me.
deleted by creator