• biofaust@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nah not really, such low population density requires cars to be used. If you think tearing that down would be simple, then yes. But I think that even in Atlanta that would be difficult. The reason why those highways are there is that more people wanted to live in that kind of neighborhood.

    • Atemu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      such low population density requires cars to be used

      As someone living in a much less dense area, I wholeheartedly disagree. Even just a single tram stop with >=bi-hourly frequency near the center could make that entire area car-free if the people weren’t car-brained. That area looks like it’d be bikable in <10min side-to-side, so most people could probably even walk to such a tram stop.

      (That tram would actually need to go somewhere but that’s part of a larger system’s problem, not of this hypothetical neighbourhood.)

      • biofaust@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are a lot of assumptions there.

        First of all, I am sure that is part of something much larger and it is a real neighborhood, not something hypothetical.

        Second, I don’t see people giving up their car brains just because you put a tram. I myself would still be using a car if it wasn’t made completely superfluous and fatiguing where I live and work.

        • Atemu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are a lot of assumptions there.

          Absolutely.

          I am sure that is part of something much larger and it is a real neighborhood, not something hypothetical.

          I’d agree but I don’t see how that makes a difference. My point was that the visible part could be served by even just one tram station. If there are more such parts, you’d obviously need tram stops for those aswell. (More tram stops would realistically be necessary anyways.)

          I don’t see people giving up their car brains just because you put a tram.

          Me neither. Point was that it’d be possible for those people to reasonably get where they need to go without any cars involved with as little infrastructure as a single tram stop.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The former streetcars aren’t an “assumption;” they’re historical fact. Here’s the damn map!

          • biofaust@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That was not the assumption. Also, that map is either 20something years too early or too late to be proof of much of what was going on in the 1950s.

    • WetBeardHairs
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The reason why those highways are there is that more people wanted to live in that kind of neighborhood.

      No, those highways are there because white men got together and intentionally chose to put the highway there with complete disregard (or quite possibly, with malice) for the people who lived there.