Life Without Cars

Firstly office and retail are possible the two broadest segments of industry. Retails isn't just about selling records, bikes and clothes. You have skilled labour in there as well; bakers, butchers, clothes designers, artists in retail, governance, law, logistics, accountancy in office to mention a bare few. Suggesting that these two areas form a narrow section of society is ridiculous.

I never said it was didn't have a fair amount of jobs involved but it still misses out a large number of other jobs types.

Secondly, you aren't preventing people from the industrial sectors from living there. Adopting an orbital industrial model is perfectly feasible, after all, we've been doing it for centuries. Cycling and walking to work for this segment of the workforce is equally viable. On top of that the orbital accessibility of cars doesn't prohibit longer working distances, it just requires people to adopt a multi-modal travel practice. Even agricultural land can be located on the edges of a town. It certainly is where I live and I cycle there at least once a week.

People have never liked living near industry unless they have to for work, if you had heavy industry in this small town it would have to be in a ghetto just like London of old was with the industrial part with all the workers away from the rest.

How about the skilled labour in domestic services like carpenters, plumbers and electricians. Why do you think they wouldn't live in a town like Vauban? I can't imagine that he absence of cars would mean that they would have no work to do.

How the fuck are they going to move stuff about? Cargo bikes would be all well and good if you only have small jobs, very close together and don't need to go pick up supplies. Do you realize how small a job has to be to require more sand and cement then you could move about by cargo bike? Even if all these requirement where ticked off, this development stupidly has no garages, where the fuck are you meant to keep a cargo bike?

[/quote]
In fact the only people that I can think of that couldn't be attracted to living in a town like Vauban are those that work in industries that are limited to metropolitain areas. However, that only applies to Vauban in the same way that it would apply to any small suburban town, like the one I live in. If a large city, London for instance, were redesigned with a suburban model like that of Vauban, then that limitation would be equally inapplicable.

Removing cars from suburban models doesn't limit social diversity, provided, like Vauban, it doesn't limit social access. The only real limitation is on those with limited mobility, and that is an issue that could easily be addressed.[/quote]

The fact is it would reduce the scope of people to live there. Even if you ignore all the points I have bought up it still only allows for people with this very standardized, average (modal) lifestyle, who just operate within this narrow band go to a middling work for 8hr a day, go to the cinema and walk the dogs on w/e. It's just not flexable enough, this really would just result in a narrowed band of people. People need to travel, they like to go visit relatives e.t.c

I think the idea of a reduced car use settlement is a good idea just not the way this is done. Sure reduce the need for cars to be able to drive locally, maybe only one car per house hold standard, but stopping people being able to have a car for a million other uses is unrealistic.

As I stated I am not against reducing car usage and reducing car need but you have to except that cars vans lorries are necessary. There are many things that are very very very difficult without them. There is also a big assumption being made that trains and buses are somehow better than cars. Cars are really only a really bad polluter when they are inefficient and only have one person in them. I know many car journeys only have one person in them but that is a how the cars are used issue not a having a car issue.