Is urban planning losing its way? The battle over how we use our streets.
in The World Around Us ·
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how much our cities are changing, and not always for the better. It feels like every time I turn on the news or scroll through my feed, there’s a massive, heated debate about how public space should be allocated. One day it’s about making everything more walkable, and the next, there’s a massive push to strip back any infrastructure that doesn't serve the traditional "car-first" model.
It’s getting harder to find middle ground. I remember when I first moved to a more urban area, I was so stoked about the idea of being able to bike to the grocery store or a coffee shop without feeling like I was playing a high-stakes game of Frogger. There’s something inherently more human about a street designed for people, not just for moving metal boxes from point A to point B as fast as possible. But lately, it feels like the very idea of "inclusive" design—designing for everyone, including those who don't drive—is being reframed as some kind of ideological agenda rather than just basic, common-sense urban planning.
I see this happening on both sides of the aisle. On one hand, you have these intense movements trying to overhaul everything to meet specific social goals, which can sometimes feel a bit performative or disconnected from the actual needs of the people living there. On the other hand, you’re seeing this massive reactionary wave where anyone suggesting that we should rethink how streets are laid out is immediately branded with these loaded political labels. It’s like we can’t even talk about safety or transit efficiency anymore without it turning into a culture war.
If we keep stripping away the "extras"—the things that make a city livable for kids, the elderly, or just people who don't want to deal with the headache of parking—what are we actually left with? A series of high-speed corridors? Sure, that's great for the logistics industry and the commuters zipping through, but it’s terrible for the actual community. We’re seeing a real tension between "efficiency" for commerce and "livability" for citizens. I worry that in the rush to refocus on the "backbone" of the country, we’re going to end up with cities that are essentially just massive, inhospitable parking lots with a few buildings stuck in between.
I’ve noticed that when funding gets pulled from specific types of infrastructure, the people who feel it most aren't the politicians arguing on X or TV. It’s the person who has to navigate a dangerous intersection on a bike, or the parent trying to teach their kid to ride a bike without fearing for their life. It feels like we're treating infrastructure as a zero-sum game. If we fund "X," we are somehow failing "Y." But isn't the whole point of municipal planning to create a cohesive system that works for everyone?
I’m genuinely curious where you all stand on this. Do you think we’ve gone too far with "specialized" infrastructure that caters to specific groups, or do you think the recent pushback is just a way to stall progress on making our cities safer and more accessible? Is it possible to have a city that prioritizes heavy transport/shipping while still being a place where a human being can safely walk or cycle?
It’s getting harder to find middle ground. I remember when I first moved to a more urban area, I was so stoked about the idea of being able to bike to the grocery store or a coffee shop without feeling like I was playing a high-stakes game of Frogger. There’s something inherently more human about a street designed for people, not just for moving metal boxes from point A to point B as fast as possible. But lately, it feels like the very idea of "inclusive" design—designing for everyone, including those who don't drive—is being reframed as some kind of ideological agenda rather than just basic, common-sense urban planning.
I see this happening on both sides of the aisle. On one hand, you have these intense movements trying to overhaul everything to meet specific social goals, which can sometimes feel a bit performative or disconnected from the actual needs of the people living there. On the other hand, you’re seeing this massive reactionary wave where anyone suggesting that we should rethink how streets are laid out is immediately branded with these loaded political labels. It’s like we can’t even talk about safety or transit efficiency anymore without it turning into a culture war.
If we keep stripping away the "extras"—the things that make a city livable for kids, the elderly, or just people who don't want to deal with the headache of parking—what are we actually left with? A series of high-speed corridors? Sure, that's great for the logistics industry and the commuters zipping through, but it’s terrible for the actual community. We’re seeing a real tension between "efficiency" for commerce and "livability" for citizens. I worry that in the rush to refocus on the "backbone" of the country, we’re going to end up with cities that are essentially just massive, inhospitable parking lots with a few buildings stuck in between.
I’ve noticed that when funding gets pulled from specific types of infrastructure, the people who feel it most aren't the politicians arguing on X or TV. It’s the person who has to navigate a dangerous intersection on a bike, or the parent trying to teach their kid to ride a bike without fearing for their life. It feels like we're treating infrastructure as a zero-sum game. If we fund "X," we are somehow failing "Y." But isn't the whole point of municipal planning to create a cohesive system that works for everyone?
I’m genuinely curious where you all stand on this. Do you think we’ve gone too far with "specialized" infrastructure that caters to specific groups, or do you think the recent pushback is just a way to stall progress on making our cities safer and more accessible? Is it possible to have a city that prioritizes heavy transport/shipping while still being a place where a human being can safely walk or cycle?