What are the actual arguments against walkable cities?

What are the actual arguments against walkable cities?

Attached: amsterdam-2261212-1920.jpg (1920x1281, 1.41M)

Not my problem, I don't live in one nor do I ever want to.

Niggers, arabs and gypsis.

Nobody wants to live in them. Do you want 20 neighbours in a 50sqm apartment or a nice yard and a big 2 storey house?

well uhh americans love cars, because the TV told them to

niggers

Why not just call them carless cities, because that's what you mean. You mean to ban cars and restrict personal movement.

Walkable cities is just a code word for removing freedom. We are already on to you, ya dumb fag.

Is Peet Bootyjudge gonna try to ban cars and do euro-tarded stuff like having carless zones or zones where you have to pay a big tax to drive? yes i think he is, that's why you're here

see you always try to come soften us up and see how we react to your little globohomo schemes

>Nobody wants to live in them.
wherever they exist they're usually the highest priced and most sought-after places to live.

living the 1/4 acre dream like a boomer. fuck that city shit

Nope, the car free street in my town has the name New Bagdad and nobody with half a brain ever goes there. It was nice for 3 years until Arabs started to rent all the stores there, it's an complete shit filled dumpster fire now.

nah they only make carless cities after there's a bunch of people there, already invested, sunk into the real estate market

like most leftist shitbag plans, they need to trap people into it, that's why the rejects will never try a new carless city, they can only try to get rid of cars in places where they have enough political clout

btw walkable city just means 'ban cars,' it doesn't mean you'll have nice nigger free green spaces to walk in ya dunce

The car is peak globohomo.

Attached: 1577674705137.jpg (1024x768, 182.96K)

> nice yard and a big 2 storey house?

Attached: suburbs depressing.jpg (737x934, 294.54K)

They make it hard for people outside the city to do anything in the city.
Either
>drive into city
>spend half an hour finding a parking spot
>pay €50 an hour to park
Or
>drive to parking lot 10km away from the city
>take bus filled with niggers and retards to city center

It also leads to snobby cuntism in the people that live in the city. The average inhabitant of Amsterdam makes San Francisco look like nazi-utopia.

None. Unless you have niggers.

nope, restricting people's movements is peak globohomo

you've got this backwards, we went over it earlier but you can play pretend we didn't

>Freedom is bleak depressing strip malls and soulless suburban living

Attached: IMG_9527-625x468.jpg (625x468, 39.75K)

Walkable cities would be fine like in the city center if it weren’t for niggers.

But real people like space and living far away from neighbors in the off chance their neighbors are niggers.

Attached: 7801B013-E760-4C73-AEF0-B5D52682C79B.jpg (1024x826, 610.3K)

>restricting people's movements is peak globohomo
Which is exactly what the car does. When you don't have car dependent cities you have the choice between walking, bus, tram, rail, bike, car, etc. When you bulldoze over all of this and force cars, then you can only take a car. The most anti-freedom thing ever.

Attached: 1661888195427.jpg (2156x2464, 1.1M)

You mean a walkable city with private houses, something that is impossible for a decent price. Them being expensive just shows that it's not reasonable at a large-scale. Europoor cities are like this and they are all high density
based, I want to do the same but my job won't let me live so far away

And is that the fault of car free areas or your immigration policies?

literal israeli shill kill yourself kike

the actual argument is literally niggers you stupid faggot. educate yourself on white flight and its connection to suburban sprawl in the US and youll have your honest answer

If you try to make something look bad you will always succed

why not live in a boatable city?

Attached: waterworld.png (749x417, 770.55K)

No the car frees you, locking everybody into a nigger filled bus / subway / "walkable" area is globohomo's dream.

But why can't you just admit that walkable city is code for banning cars? Is it because it sounds bad?

I'm okay with carfree cities, when all the niggers and subhumans are back in there own shithole or just death. It's also a nice punishment for city cucks to rob them of there cars.

>I hate the car not for what it is, but for what it is associated with
Kill yourself

All cities are walkable, you just don't like what there is to see and do. We should cater all policy decisions by your wants and desires to see and do things that maje your brain chemicals for your desires.

Pic related is how Amerishits like to live. Large gray parking lots filled with grease and oil, great scenery to enjoy on their way to the local dollar store to pick cheese puffs and mountain dew to watch their favorite show on netflix

Attached: american freedom.jpg (1000x667, 335.38K)

It's against the law in America.

niggers

>Walkable cities is just a code word for removing freedom. We are already on to you, ya dumb fag.

Exactly

Banning cars sounds amazing. Unfortunately, that'll never happen as long as globohomo is in place.

Attached: Screen Shot 2022-03-30 at 1.18.53 AM.png (1162x1426, 3.47M)

why have cities?

having plenty of space and doing what you want is freedom, yeah

crowded countries are cucked and the same is true within the same country, the crowded cities are cucked.

What do I do when the weather is bad and I need to go somewhere?

The sprawl shithole that you see in North American (and I'd imagine Oceania isn't much better) is the consequence of building car dependent cities and neighborhoods. You get nothing but endless stroads. The US used to be a leader in passenger railway and major cities all had great infrastructure, but we bulldozed and ripped it all up.

Attached: stroad.jpg (668x400, 55.67K)

It's fine, unless there are niggers. Do you really want to walk around them?

You don't even have to try, there is very little appeal to suburban living. Literally the worst of both worlds (rural and urban)

Attached: strip m.jpg (640x480, 76.15K)

Shitskins

shopping centers like this are actually depressing and they are fucking everywhere with some exceptions

>netflix
that's for urban goyim

nope as usual you're pretending to get it ass backwards, globohomo wants to ban cars and isn't shy about saying it

Try talking from one end of Manhattan to the other in the dead of winter.

its only a city when enough boats connect to each other

Attached: waterworld city.png (746x414, 770.16K)

Real question, what do you propose instead of the car which would have the same speed, reliability, convenience, and cost?
We have passenger rail here and it is not a good solution. Slower, more crowded, filled with maoris (our niggers), unreliable, and doesn't even get you to your final destination. You need to walk>train>bus>walk to get almost anywhere
>a parking lot is not visually appealing
Who would've thought

Ever wonder why Boston looks so nice compared to 99% of NA cities?

Attached: GettyImages-1198537755.jpg (788x443, 554.59K)

>When you don't have car dependent cities you have the choice between walking, bus, tram, rail, bike, car, etc.
>When you bulldoze over all of this and force cars, then you can only take a car.

>I offer you... an Accord
>turns out she was only testing you

bros?..... feeling some semitic-related remarks coming on

Attached: 22F051F6-096D-488D-B0AA-D2C74AC1455D.jpg (850x531, 48.19K)

hey i'm walking here

Attached: 3000.jpg (1200x900, 177.34K)

>Plenty of space

Attached: suburbs 1.jpg (2000x1500, 341.38K)

this is the return to the past, so you will need to use an umbrella and deal with the remaining water

People that like living in concrete jungles are sub-human. Doesn't matter your skin color, you are sub-human, period.
Cities in their entirety should be banned as a concept.

Our government would like us to attempt to ride our bicycles through a foot of snow in the winter. On unlit streets, with no sidewalk, and miles to the nearest store!

>Japanese flag
>Talks about Manhattan
huh

Diabetes

Attached: 1644477774947.jpg (533x645, 88.67K)

ITT : seething fatties

Take off the VPN, Moshe.
Fun fact: Kansas City used to have the most extensive street car network in the world and now it's nothing but a giant parking lot.

Attached: 1648578130782.jpg (1780x2416, 937.99K)

Will you have more in a walkable city or less?

seems like her greatest passion was Eating
not to shoot down, since mine is Smoking
meh

This level of cognitive dissonance is insane.

not great but still better than hearing the neighbors living above you

freedom of movement always gets brought up, but i lived in an urban enviro with no car for a year and got everywhere i needed to no problem even went to some places i shouldnt have probably been its just big oil wanting to keep us consooming

Attached: 1644973618579.gif (500x277, 735.71K)

Have you seen The Netherlands? By providing such good infrastructure to accommodate for multiple methods of transportation, they paradoxically have the most car friendly cities in the world by designing their cities around people rather than cars. Houston is completely designed around cars and it's terrible for both people and cars.

Attached: houston-ba.jpg.jpg (3264x1632, 1.63M)

Culturally, there is very little difference between suburban and urban faggots

>a parking lot is not visually appealing
yeah that is our point faggot, non walkable cities will be all parking lots, you know because of all the cars

Attached: strip2.jpg (1540x924, 91.7K)

Cities are only bad because of diversity and libtards.

That's fine, but not everyone is a cityfag.

Attached: av8dOvM_700b.jpg (480x348, 41.77K)

>walkable cities
As in, cities that can walk? Colossal constructions on powerful mechanical legs?
Very impractical, probably. Dealing with "earthquakes" after every step? Getting the amount of resources required for construction? Maintenance? Even just getting enough free space for those cities to walk on? All of those are big problems. Not really worth it in the end.
But the idea is cool.

Boston?

Shut up geoflaggot.

user cars are great if you have $20K
What if you DON'T have a car, and like $100 for transportation for the month?
Surely it would be easier to get around on this budget, with a Larger variety of Competing services (Buses, Taxis, Rail, etc...)

N

Live on the top floor then

Attached: cd.jpg (1024x683, 219.47K)

Eat shit and neck yourself globohomo shill cucks.

>This level of cognitive dissonance is insane.

Attached: 1601554706504.jpg (800x600, 48.72K)

pollution (niggers)

Freeze.

is it going to work? convincing people to allow their cars to be taken to increase their freedom?

this is a bizarre way of thinking, are you a woman?

Sounds retarded, I'd rather just drive my truck

I honestly think the correct answer is somewhere in the middle. Like have a lot suburbia because people will want more space as they get older and start families but also have some areas zoned for town houses and low rise condos (with higher density for workers that want to be close to downtown). Montreal does a decent job of this surprisingly.

In a few years we’ll have self driving ride sharing vehicles/pods anyway. That will make getting around easier in low density areas even if you don’t have a car which may settle a lot of this debate.