I would prefer to have the entry with just "carfree" (there is a german page just "autofrei"), then more pages about details like
- carfree movement
- carfree cities* (here I would like to have more details about the urban differences to the conventional city design, I mean categories and definitions like what - for example - Randy wrote about Fes)
- carfree places (detailed list of ...)
- carfree life style in general (if not described in the main "carfree" page or the "movement" page)
- car-lite (to me it`s only a small step and no satisfying solution, Randy explained all about except one point: you cannot do good marketing for new housing projects with that car-lite concept: carfree households don`t know why to move in a car-lite quarter, because there are still cars, and car-owners don`t find enough parking places, at the end nobody is happy)
another point: Is it possible to convince wikipedia chiefs (or whoever) to write always "carfree" instead of "car-free" ? at the moment I see different wordings Carfree_Cities / Car-free_zone / Car-free_movement / List_of_carfree_places ... having that in one word looks better to me
*In the Wikipedia I read:
"... The goal of the Carfree Cities movement series ..." - this sounds to me like a mixture of "carfree movement" and "TCFC series" - or is it only my bad english ??
----- Original Message -----
From: Randall Ghent - WCN
To: firstname.lastname@example.org ; carfree_network@...
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 7:52 PM
Subject: [carfree_network] Car-free Cities entry in Wikipedia - may need your help
I would propose that this discussion be only on the carfree_cities list from now on. That way the lists remain distinct. It's also our normal policy is to have practical project discussions on carfree_network, and send theoretical discussions to carfree_cities. Excuse the very long post, but it's my last on this subject (on the carfree_network list).
NOTE: By going to www.worldcarfree.net/listservs/, people can find out how to subscribe to the digest version of carfree_network (means all posts will be combined into one message per day), as well as either version of carfree_cities.
Eric Britton wrote:
> The main point that I can see coming out here is Lloyd's idea of a double
entry: car-free vs. car-lite. Since I am myself a lite guy - lots fewer cars
in our city with lots less negative impacts - this has some attraction for
me. But then on the other hand, I wonder if wiki-wise we might be stretching
things a bit thin. To be the devil's advocate: just because we see this
distinction and find it important, it may not have much resonance for most
of the people who pop into the WP for help.
I think it's likely that people will hear about the carfree movement because we are using that term in the press, etc., and so they might go to Wikipedia to find out more about it. Or they could go to www.worldcarfree.net/about_us/ and get the definition there.
Also, I think there's a fundamental misconception that we're just talking about "few cars" versus "no cars" -- implying that the "no cars" position is simply a stricter version of the former. This isn't necessarily the case, because the urban form proposed by the two can be fundamentally different.
To make this absolutely clear, see the map at of Sfax, Tunisia at www.worldcarfree.net/conference/sfax-proposal.php. There you see two areas of equal size. One is carfree and the other not. But the street pattern of each is totally different. The carfree area is a fine-grained pedestrian environment that provides for up-close interaction involving literally all the senses. There is no room for cars -- or if a few might fit here and there they would seriously detract from the atmosphere (and the space available for interaction) if they were allowed.
The car-dominated area is a typical grid pattern. Those proposing "car-lite" would look at the area and be likely to find various ways to reduce car use -- but they would leave the urban form as they found it. Those proposing "carfree" would be likely to modify the urban form in order to intensify the use of the space (creating more "places" within the same geographic area). This increases liveliness, level of interest, and the number of destinations reachable within a short walk. For example: we might build passageways through buildings, divide wide streets into narrower streets by placing kiosks or buildings or other destinations in the middle, convert courtyards into outdoor cafes or playgrounds, etc. So I see this as a fundamentally different approach to "car- lite." And it is much more in tune with the David Engwicht's often-cited definition of a city: "an invention to maximise exchange and to minimise travel." (It is simply impossible to simultaneously maximise exchange and devote 10-60% of the urban surface to roads, parking lots and other infrastructure that provides little if any social exchange space. Nor is it possible to minimise travel while simultaneously accommodating the automobile or other high-speed, space-intensive transportation modes.)
> Also bear in mind, that the present entry was at one time marked for
deletion and it was only the forceful entry of Randy Ghent into the
dialogue, along with his subsequent adjustments of the text, that served to
keep it there.
I'm not sure what was forceful about it. I just went to that page today for the first time and added a comment on the discussion page. I didn't modify the actual definition page.
Here are a couple of sticking points that I am not yet quite
1. Are we correct to call this a "movement"? Is there a better word?
For example for the entry on sustainable transportation that I have been
working on with a number of you helping, we call it just that: ST all by
itself, no movement or anything else. I think that works for us there, but
what about here?
I think "movement" is the best way to describe those promoting carfree solutions. Small movement maybe, but still a movement -- one which is set to grow.
2. (Actually if you go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Transportation_Movement (an earlier
entry) you will see that it now segues into
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_transportation, which makes sense
I think that both "alternative transportation" and "sustainable transportation" are not what carfree is all about. Both terms seem to reinforce the misconception that I described above. Again, we're talking about minimising travel and maximising exchange (interaction), not just making transportation more sustainable. The following is from my recent article "Top Ten Myths About the Carfree Movement" (people can skip this part if they know this already):
Myth 10: It's All About Sustainable Transportation
Many people, when introduced to the carfree issue, might often see it as a theme neatly contained within the broader field of transportation. However, what the movement seeks to do could better be described as minimising the role of transportation in society and replacing it with interaction, exchanging mobility for proximity.
That is, we would like to have less obligatory transportation and more time and space freed up for the exchange of information, ideas, goods, services, skills, experience and culture. Human settlements were built to enable these types of exchange, and their urban form reflected this priority until recent history. Streets were not race tracks (what we call "busy streets") or boring dead zones ("quiet streets"), but places to talk and play, buy and sell, laugh and cry.
Walk out the front door of your home and imagine the streetscape as you'd want it if you had to spend the rest of your life in that very spot. Would it be a stream of vehicular traffic or a lively people-oriented space with lots to see and do?
Successful communication of this message (a focus on quality of life issues) could result in much greater public participation in the carfree movement. Being "carfree" is for everyone - men, women, and children. This would represent a shift from technical discussions of "modal shift" to practical, creative matters of how we want our road space to look and what we want it to be used for.
In describing this movement, the adjective "sustainable" is often placed in front of the word "transport" or "transportation." But the crux of the issue is not so much what can be sustained, as what should be sustained. After all, some practices that can be sustained shouldn't be. Torture, war, greed... While we could argue about whether mass automobile use can be sustained (and for how long), the carfree movement above all believes that it's not desirable, and should not be sustained.
3. What do you think? Does that bring us to "Car Free Cities" as a
better title for the entry?
No, I think we still need an entry for "carfree movement" -- or the main entry could be "carfree" and then "carfree movement" would be a sub-set of that. It's not just about carfree cities. And we already have a definition for the movement (at www.worldcarfree.net/about_us/).
4. Which still leaves us with Lloyd's idea of a 'car lite' entry,
including all his caveats. Hmm.
Yes, a "car-lite" entry is needed too.
Randall Ghent, Co-Director
WORLD CARFREE NETWORK
Kratka 26, 100 00 Prague 10, Czech Republic
tel: +(420) 274-810-849 - fax: +(420) 274-772-017
< email@example.com et > - < http://www.worldcarfree.net >
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]