Carectomy.com has a story on a new small project in Paris:
... in which it describes its "car-free layout".
IF you go to the architect's site <http://www.edouardfrancois.com/
can see that this project has about 50-parking spaces.
This is I suppose a high-grade "carlite" project (see second paragraph
from bottom here for one definition:
and is "optically carfree" but still - unless in the unlikely event it
was built on a place which formerly had more residential parking - still
increasing the number of car spaces in the world.
I absolutely agree that the project has great design features to ensure
interaction and use of sustainable transport (and a one car for every
two flats is a more progressive ratio than most places) but those pesky
cars do so many bad things outside of the project, of course including
making it dangerous for people who don't live in optically carfree places.
This is clearly not carfree nor Carfree, and I think that possibly both
these terms are being abused. And to be honest I don't see too much new
in this "sweep the cars under the rug" thing, as I lived in an optically
carfree townhouse condominium project built in the middle of Los Angeles
in 1966 - which was a pioneering development - and which did encourage
interaction among residents and so on. People could have more than two
cars per flat, however... there is a bus stop in front and now a carfree
bikepath to the ocean about 50m away.
So, what can we do to encourage the term "car-lite" used when
appropriate, and the term "carfree" only when appropriate? Is "optically
carfree" or "car-lite" too complicated? If "carfree" is in danger of
becoming the new "green" is it just a natural result of its popularity,
and something we have to live with? Do we need a new term?
Green Idea Factory
CZ-10100 Praha 10
++420 605 915 970
++420 222 517 832
Green Idea Factory is a member of World Carfree Network