Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

This thread is based on a daydream: "Boston's taken over by micro-apartments, filled with young, connected people who aren't particularly attached to their homes — they might move every few months, just to stay within walking distance of work, school, or friends."

Originally Posted by ro-monster

That might not be such a daydream. It has already happened to some locations in the Bay Area. Frankly the result is awful. It's now considered normal to change jobs every few months in the tech sector, and if you stay in one job for several years it actually counts against you in hiring. Most of these people are getting paid very well, and they do move frequently. Consequently rents are outrageous in most areas (1-bedroom apartments starting around $3000/month -- these are far from micro-apartments though). People who earn ordinary wages are starting to move to the poorer areas in the East Bay and commuting long distances to work, or if they are young, they're staying with their parents.

We are lucky enough to have lived in the same apartment for 5.5 years so the rent is reasonable; rents were less than half of what they are today. We have no intention of moving anytime soon!

Originally Posted by ro-monster

I live in the Bay Area. San Francisco is a decent candidate, but I don't think it's because of the tech companies. Most of the larger ones are located in the suburbs about 40 miles south of the actual city. In fact, some of the suburban towns have little other than tech companies in them. So many of their employees live in SF and commute to work in the South Bay that each of the big companies has a fleet of private buses for employees.

But bicycles and transit are both used pretty heavily in the more densely populated parts of the entire Bay Area, and many people who live in SF don't own cars, because the cost and hassle are simply prohibitive. You must either pay for a private parking space (usually $300/month or more) or get a resident sticker to park on the street and move your car frequently, as parking is prohibited on one side of every street for street cleaning twice a week. Most people who park on the streets get a lot of expensive parking tickets. Car sharing is very popular and the vehicles are everywhere.

I think it would not be that great a leap for SF to have no privately owned cars inside the eastern half of the city. The western half is more like a suburb and not as well served by transit, so that would be harder. I do think that car sharing would stay, though, unless something catastrophic happens.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

This thread is based on a daydream: "Boston's taken over by micro-apartments, filled with young, connected people who aren't particularly attached to their homes — they might move every few months, just to stay within walking distance of work, school, or friends."

Originally Posted by Roody

Therefore, a carfree city of the future might include driverless car-shares or ride-shares as part of the transportation mix.

Originally Posted by Roody

You know what? This isn't work or school, it's playtime. Try to lighten up a little, life is too short for this negativity all the time.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

A carfree city of the future "might" include auto gyro planes that double up as pleasure boats and will fit in the garage of every resident of the Emerald City!

Originally Posted by Roody

There you go big boy! Try to have some fun with it!

Would the garages have retractable roofs so the gyro planes can fly out of them? And why will they make the planes out of rotisserie lamb meat?

Originally Posted by Roody

Let's say a "car" is a privately owned vehicle used for personal transportation. So emergency vehicles and cargo trucks might still be found in a carfree city.

Originally Posted by Zedoo

As fuel costs rise past affordability, the distribution network drops markets, starting with remote and poor locations.

Originally Posted by spdntrxi

I don't think there will be a single one in my lifetime.

Originally Posted by ThermionicScott

Isn't Mackinac Island already there?

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Care to provide examples of any remote and poor locations that have been dropped from the fuel "distribution network"?

Originally Posted by CliffordK

And, of course the Amish. According to Wikipedia, there are about 290,000 Amish in the USA, and the population is increasing rapidly. I think most of the communities are relatively rural and small towns, but if they don't get their population growth in check... we may well see large Amish cities... how will that work?

Originally Posted by CliffordK

In the USA, or in the world?

Here is a list of countries by cars per capita. The countries at the bottom have 2 or 3 cars per thousand people. I can't imagine much of a car infrastructure.

I was surprised to see San Marino so high on the list because the central city didn't seem like much of a car place, but perhaps that is made up by the surrounding neighborhoods, and a propensity to travel into Italy for many things.

In the USA, gas stations may come and go, but the cars seem to be here to stay. Electric Vehicles?

Originally Posted by CliffordK

One thing I remember about Italy is that in the evenings, people would just get out and walk. The downtown area just became a mass of people.

Anyway, I could imagine car-free zones slowly increasing in size in some cities, especially if there was good alternative transportation, and perhaps park & ride. But the problem remains that some people don't like getting more than 10 feet from their car door.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Do you think your response provides any information about remote and poor locations that have been dropped from the fuel "distribution network" as suggested by Zeedo would be a prelude to some future location becoming a carfree city?

Is your point that villages in the Amazonian jungles are the car free cities that the OP is daydreaming about?

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Naah, I'll let other LCF posters babble like idiots over the OP, while waiting on further dish from the LCF's Prince of Pipedreams who seems to be on holiday.

Originally Posted by Roody

This is an irrelevant and insignificant side point. You have already said that you don't want to "play" the game. So I have to think that you're deliberately trying to derail this thread by going off on a tangent. Please try to stay somewhat on topic for once.

Originally Posted by CliffordK

Perhaps Silicone Valley.

Where people will just sit at home and order everything on the internet.
No need to ever actually leave the home.

Originally Posted by ro-monster

I live in the Bay Area. San Francisco is a decent candidate, but I don't think it's because of the tech companies. Most of the larger ones are located in the suburbs about 40 miles south of the actual city. In fact, some of the suburban towns have little other than tech companies in them. So many of their employees live in SF and commute to work in the South Bay that each of the big companies has a fleet of private buses for employees.

But bicycles and transit are both used pretty heavily in the more densely populated parts of the entire Bay Area, and many people who live in SF don't own cars, because the cost and hassle are simply prohibitive. You must either pay for a private parking space (usually $300/month or more) or get a resident sticker to park on the street and move your car frequently, as parking is prohibited on one side of every street for street cleaning twice a week. Most people who park on the streets get a lot of expensive parking tickets. Car sharing is very popular and the vehicles are everywhere.

I think it would not be that great a leap for SF to have no privately owned cars inside the eastern half of the city. The western half is more like a suburb and not as well served by transit, so that would be harder. I do think that car sharing would stay, though, unless something catastrophic happens.