Or can we somehow get people to consider the tradeoffs when you "pave
paradise and put up a parking lot?"
Diane
On Fri, 12 Apr 1996, Fritz Knorr wrote:
>
> >Actually, it's shorthand for my usual rant about:
> >"The-organizing-principle-of-America-is-the-automobile-people-won't-go
> >where-they-can't-drive-and-park-dammit-would Walmart-build-parking
> >lots-where-customers-ride-shuttle-buses?-only-kids-under-sixteen,-
> >pointy-headed-professors-and-granolas-ride-bikes-public-buildings
> >need-adjacent-parking-for-customers-and-employees,blah,blah,blah.
> >
> >Aren't you glad I abbreviated it? :-)
>
> OK. But I also detected a note of
> we-keep-deluding-ourselves-that-anyone-wants-a
> liveable-community-all-they-really-want-is-a-place-to-drive-and-park-if-we-w
> ant something-nice-it'll-only-come-by-sneaking-it-along-with-some-other-ugly
> development-because-a-direct-approch-to-a-human-scale-livable-community-will
> always-fail.
>
> I dunno, poetry is always open to interpretation.
>
> Let's face it - automobiles are the dominant species in out community.
> Humans have completely lost control. Autos are greedy and dangerous, and
> taking them on in a direct confrontation will always fail. They got us
> beat. The only way to get something built for humans is to _sneak_ it by
> the autos. The Mountain View project failed because it was human oriented
> construction right on the auto's turf. It was a direct provocation. They
> figured it out right away.
>
> So, for downtown, remember, autos really don't like parkades. You can
> squeeze in urban autos when you really have to. But even they never
> actually like it; although they'll tolerate it, barely. But you take the
> country born and bred autos around here; why, they would never go in one of
> those things.
>
> 50 cents an hour?? Forget it. Let's go to wal-mart.
>
> Fritz
>
>
>