I think it’s because the bar is so low, just the ability to choose to walk for everyday commuting, errands, and leisure qualifies as car free. Ie, you can choose to be car free if you want.
Oh. So you mean the places where you have to be rich to live at a nice place, while everyone else has to live in a tiny apartment in a huge building that’s been borderline uninhabitable since the 1970’s?
Yes and that’s the problem. Walkable areas are currently mostly only affordable for the rich (mainly in the US that is, other countries seem to have no problem designing both rich and poor areas to be walkable). If we built more places to be walkable, less affluent areas might be able to enjoy the benefits as well.
Yeah I don’t understand that at all. I thought car free meant a place, usually a part of town, where cars are not allowed. Those places exist. So to call places nothing like that “car free” seems pretty useless imo
I suspect you’re referring to the use of the term when applied to a person. It makes much more sense to me to say “I’m car free” even if I own a car if I don’t drive it regularly. I mean, still not accurate, but makes more sense.
Colloquially it is used to refer to the capability of a place that allows its inhabitants to live car free.
Completely banning cars is rarely a demand because it makes no sense. A car is not a problem, hundreds of them are. Especially if they are used and required for everyday mundane tasks.
SF and Oakland aren’t car-free, they are car outsourced. You don’t drive, you have someone drive you. Other then a very narrow stretch of Down Town SF to Oakland, most of that metro area isn’t served by public transit. Unlike say NYC where most of the metro area IS served by public transit. (It’s still not car free though.)
What city?
san francisco
Exactly, no one drives in New York City also, who wanna drive in that traffic?
Huh, weird that when I was there, there were literally thousands of cars. Probably just hallucinated it
That’s not really what car free means.
For years I’ve somehow missed this. Cars driving on nearly every street and somehow that “car-free”, yeah makes perfect sense.
I think it’s because the bar is so low, just the ability to choose to walk for everyday commuting, errands, and leisure qualifies as car free. Ie, you can choose to be car free if you want.
Oh. So you mean the places where you have to be rich to live at a nice place, while everyone else has to live in a tiny apartment in a huge building that’s been borderline uninhabitable since the 1970’s?
Yes and that’s the problem. Walkable areas are currently mostly only affordable for the rich (mainly in the US that is, other countries seem to have no problem designing both rich and poor areas to be walkable). If we built more places to be walkable, less affluent areas might be able to enjoy the benefits as well.
Yeah I don’t understand that at all. I thought car free meant a place, usually a part of town, where cars are not allowed. Those places exist. So to call places nothing like that “car free” seems pretty useless imo
In general usage it means ‘the ability to get by with the usual needs of life without needing a car’.
At least as far as I understand it.
I suspect you’re referring to the use of the term when applied to a person. It makes much more sense to me to say “I’m car free” even if I own a car if I don’t drive it regularly. I mean, still not accurate, but makes more sense.
I guess that’s one way to understand that word.
Colloquially it is used to refer to the capability of a place that allows its inhabitants to live car free.
Completely banning cars is rarely a demand because it makes no sense. A car is not a problem, hundreds of them are. Especially if they are used and required for everyday mundane tasks.
The only city that I know of that fits that definition is Venice, Italy. I’ve been able to live car free in SF for 10 years.
I would make every city Macinac Island if I could, minus the horses.
SF and Oakland aren’t car-free, they are car outsourced. You don’t drive, you have someone drive you. Other then a very narrow stretch of Down Town SF to Oakland, most of that metro area isn’t served by public transit. Unlike say NYC where most of the metro area IS served by public transit. (It’s still not car free though.)
What, I had no idea it was car free! That’s awesome!
That’s ridiculous. SF is not car free at all!
So do you still utilize Uber or driving services? If so you’re still dependent.
I’ve used taxis a handful of times over the past 10 years. Mostly for surgery related things.
Lots of cyclists get hit by cars in SF. How is that possible if it’s car free?