Re: [carfree_cities] "Requiem for Detroit?"
- Actually, that was me who wrote the quote below. I understood what you intended and I took it at face value, but seeing the numbers and use of "carfree" in this context provoked an immediate reaction to the vast differences in the way the word is being used and what is actually implied depending on how you use it.
When you think about it, 17% of households isn't necessarily 17% of the population: there may be some variance above or below that number. I wonder, though, what the general rate of car ownership per household for motoring households alone is? Probably closer to 2 than to 1 in some places.
I was pointing out the dissonance between the percentage of *non-motoring* households for any given city and the actual percentage of truly carfree areas that you would think should correspond to non-car-use. It's rather discouraging that no matter how high the percentage of non-motorist households, automobile infrastructure is still uniformly dominant everywhere. There are still a lot of mental habits to change.
On 2010-03-24, at 2:59 PM, Richard Risemberg wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Pascal van den Noort wrote:
> >> I understand your use of "carfree" here, in the very restricted
> >> sense of people not owning or using cars, but it clashes
> >> resoundingly with what I usually take the word to mean. A 55.7%
> >> carfree NYC, as I understand the word, would be one where over
> >> 55.7% of the public thoroughfares (or taken another way,
> >> thoroughfares over an area corresponding to 55.7% of the population
> I meant carfree households, of course, pursuant to the original post.
Montreal QC Canada