Why Cities Are Built for Cars, Not People: A Critical Analysis
In the discussion of urban planning and sustainable living, the question often arises: why are cities built for cars and not people? This issue is particularly pronounced in certain regions, especially the United States, where the car-centric philosophy has deeply influenced urban development.
The Car-Centric Philosophy in the US
Unlike cities in countries such as the Netherlands, where modern urban planning prioritizes human-friendly designs, the United States is renowned for its car-centric cities. The infrastructure heavily favors vehicular traffic, with vast parking lots and multi-lane freeways becoming the norm.
Examples of Car-Centric Urban Design
One stark example of this car-oriented urban design is the Mall of America in the United States, which is surrounded by an enormous parking lot capable of holding thousands of cars. This design indicates a significant prioritization of automobile use over pedestrian accessibility and convenient public transport.
In contrast, the city of Sweden offers a different perspective. Consider the largest arena in Sweden, which holds tens of thousands of people and is surrounded by various shops, markets, and other amenities connected via walking pathways or easy access via buses and subways. The limited parking space here highlights the importance of sustainable urban design that prioritizes convenience and accessibility over car dominance.
The Historical Context
The structure and design of cities in the US have evolved gradually over time, shaped by the transportation technology available at the time. Historically, cities and the suburbs under development have prioritized motorized vehicles, leading to car-centric city layouts. For instance, in the late 20th century, many cities and suburbs were planned with a significant reliance on cars as the primary mode of transportation.
The idea of a city designed for fewer cars but still accommodating vehicular transportation elsewhere is a concept that emerges from this historical context. Given that cities were developed decades if not centuries ago, the infrastructure and design were optimized for existing transportation technologies rather than current or future alternatives.
The Shift to Modern Urban Planning
Modern cities, developed around 40-50 years ago, aimed to reduce the dependence on cars to some extent. Suburbs and cities under current development are increasingly considering alternative transportation methods, offering better solutions aligned with sustainable living. However, the challenge lies in convincing people to relinquish their car dependency, as driving has become a deeply ingrained habit.
The inherent flexibility and adaptability of alternative transportation methods, such as public transit, biking, and walking, need to be enhanced to meet the diverse needs of urban residents. Existing alternatives often lack the flexibility and convenience that cars offer, making it difficult for many individuals to switch.
The Future of Urban Planning
The city of the future could be built around the principles of efficient and sustainable transportation. This requires a new layout that minimizes the reliance on cars, yet still provides easy access to external areas. Such an urban design might include the use of innovative technologies like vertical stacking, which is currently not feasible with the available technology.
The current urban planning models, such as those based on the current way of working, represent the best we have at present. However, the challenge is to adapt and evolve to include more pedestrian-friendly and sustainable designs. It is possible to be sad about the current state of urban planning or to take action by creating the necessary alternatives.
Changing the car-centric culture requires a concerted effort from all stakeholders, including city planners, transportation authorities, and the general public. By considering and implementing sustainable alternatives, we can create cities that truly prioritize the well-being and convenience of all residents.