• TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    For years I’ve somehow missed this. Cars driving on nearly every street and somehow that “car-free”, yeah makes perfect sense.

    • BakedCatboy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        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?

        • BakedCatboy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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

        • Bo7a@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.