North American Car Culture

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by umbria27

Back to the infamous Danish letter and the subsequent brouhaha, I find the reaction hilarious. There's so much knee-jerk defensiveness. Surely this isn't a controversial topic. Our cities are overly car centric. We need to change this to make more liveable cities. Apparently we don't like being told so by Danish couch surfers.

I find that funny as well... even the mayor has weighed in. I agree the letter is true, but generally people don't appreciate unsolicited advice. It's like getting a letter from your guests that they enjoyed their stay but "Your house is too messy, your food is going to make everyone in the house fatter, and the house is unsafe for children. We talked to your children and spouse and they agreed" You already know you can improve these things and want to improve, but don't appreciate unsolicited advice.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by umbria27

Back to the infamous Danish letter and the subsequent brouhaha, I find the reaction hilarious. There's so much knee-jerk defensiveness. Surely this isn't a controversial topic. Our cities are overly car centric. We need to change this to make more liveable cities. Apparently we don't like being told so by Danish couch surfers.

But don't you get the irony of it all? Here's her response to one of the comments to the article:

Holly Chabowski: We visited Parc du Bic, Algonquin, Bay of Fundy, the Gaspe penninsula and Nova Scotia. We rented a car.

So they drove around the country, saw it from the perspective of a car, and complained that it was car-centric. It's kind of like a smoker complaining that the room is too smoky.

The first few times I travelled around Europe was on Eurail passes and I was incredibly impressed and thought it was paradise. One time a friend and I rented a car and drove around France it shattered the illusion — their suburbs have big box stores and malls, too.

If she was sincere about her concern for car-centrism, she could have taken the train or bus, or ride a bike. If her excuse for renting a car was that it was cheaper and faster than any of these modes, then bingo she's right on the money regarding our North American habits.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

But don't you get the irony of it all? Here's her response to one of the comments to the article:



So they drove around the country, saw it from the perspective of a car, and complained that it was car-centric. It's kind of like a smoker complaining that the room is too smoky.

The first few times I travelled around Europe was on Eurail passes and I was incredibly impressed and thought it was paradise. One time a friend and I rented a car and drove around France it shattered the illusion — their suburbs have big box stores and malls, too.

If she was sincere about her concern for car-centrism, she could have taken the train or bus, or ride a bike. If her excuse for renting a car was that it was cheaper and faster than any of these modes, then bingo she's right on the money regarding our North American habits.

I agree, Europe had suburban hypermarts long before Canada did, Canada is less obese than many European countries and while Canadian suburbs may be dull and repetitive, they are generally clean and safe (try hanging around the suburbs of Paris, Rome or Amsterdam, they make Whitby or Stittsville seem like paradise).

I agree Denmark does a better job of accommodating cyclists, but the country is small, flat, has mild summers and no snow in winter so it is more practical as a year-round transportation mechanism. But frankly their "car parks" look a lot like ours https://www.google.ca/maps/@56.20389...dbRw!2e0?hl=en

[S-Man]

"I am obese. My children are overweight and most of the people who live around here. I am surrounded by fast food chains, car parks and highways. I would love to ditch the car. My neighbourhood doesn’t even have sidewalks." — Lévis

(Your saviours are here, my obese, fictional, doomed-to-an-early-death buddy. Years from now, bronze monuments will reach for the sky, honouring two couch surfers from Denmark who were the first - the FIRST - to open ANYBODY'S eyes to a decades-long, glaringly obvious problem and spur the dozy, overweight and very, very selfish people of Canada to FINALLY notice the hellscape surrounding them and take those FIRST, tentative steps towards building a better future for their depressed, malnourished kids.)

Frankly put, and I can't believe this story has such long legs, the couple in question (besides being disingenuous) are ignoring the progress already made towards their dream state and infantalizing the inhabitants of Canada, making each and every one a helpless invalid who need to be prodded along by an all-knowing, progressive overlord from the 'civilized' side of the Atlantic.

And I though so many eco types on this board hated the monarchy...and the patriarchy...

When in Montreal, they must have passed by a Metro station - you know, the extensive subway system built decades ago? Kind of like in several European cities? Same for Toronto. GO Trains, maybe, like the commuter rail they have in so-perfect-its-insane Britain?

Oh right, I forgot - they spent their time in Burger King and Timmies lots in Beaconsfield, Vaughan, and Dartmouth, staring at cars and penning their letter.

Yes, this is what bothers me - the patronizing tone and intent, and the fact it fails to acknowledge any progress on the part of Canadians.

As far as I can tell, the average city in Canada is maybe 150 years old, a fraction of the age of ANY SINGLE EUROPEAN city. You can take trains between cities, buses or trains within that city, and people still own cars, but not everyone; improvements are happening on the transit front everywhere you go, and owning a car is getting ever more difficult and expensive.

Cars, whose fuel economy have increased an average of 23% in the last 5 years alone.

We don't need this couple's smarmy 'help'.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Yes, obviously that's true, but what does it say about the people who, although they spout about the need to preserve natural spaces, have never bothered (and express disinterest) in ever visiting there.

Not much, really.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by umbria27

The people living immediately adjacent to it bought a similar green field tract house 5 years previously, so they don't care.

Let me introduce you to Ottawa. Oh, boy, do those five-year veterans "care".

[J.OT13]

They think Canada is bad, they should visit the U.S.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by S-Man

"I am obese. My children are overweight and most of the people who live around here. I am surrounded by fast food chains, car parks and highways. I would love to ditch the car. My neighbourhood doesn’t even have sidewalks." — Lévis

(Your saviours are here, my obese, fictional, doomed-to-an-early-death buddy. Years from now, bronze monuments will reach for the sky, honouring two couch surfers from Denmark who were the first - the FIRST - to open ANYBODY'S eyes to a decades-long, glaringly obvious problem and spur the dozy, overweight and very, very selfish people of Canada to FINALLY notice the hellscape surrounding them and take those FIRST, tentative steps towards building a better future for their depressed, malnourished kids.)

Frankly put, and I can't believe this story has such long legs, the couple in question (besides being disingenuous) are ignoring the progress already made towards their dream state and infantalizing the inhabitants of Canada, making each and every one a helpless invalid who need to be prodded along by an all-knowing, progressive overlord from the 'civilized' side of the Atlantic.

And I though so many eco types on this board hated the monarchy...and the patriarchy...

When in Montreal, they must have passed by a Metro station - you know, the extensive subway system built decades ago? Kind of like in several European cities? Same for Toronto. GO Trains, maybe, like the commuter rail they have in so-perfect-its-insane Britain?

Oh right, I forgot - they spent their time in Burger King and Timmies lots in Beaconsfield, Vaughan, and Dartmouth, staring at cars and penning their letter.

Yes, this is what bothers me - the patronizing tone and intent, and the fact it fails to acknowledge any progress on the part of Canadians.

As far as I can tell, the average city in Canada is maybe 150 years old, a fraction of the age of ANY SINGLE EUROPEAN city. You can take trains between cities, buses or trains within that city, and people still own cars, but not everyone; improvements are happening on the transit front everywhere you go, and owning a car is getting ever more difficult and expensive.

Cars, whose fuel economy have increased an average of 23% in the last 5 years alone.

We don't need this couple's smarmy 'help'.

To be quite frank, most of the European recreational areas that aren't right next to a city and also rural areas that you might want to visit are ideally visited by car as well, and not very practical to get to via public transport.

I know this because I've done both. In the vast majority of cases you either have to book a motorcoach day trip (as you would do for Niagara from Toronto or Charlevoix from Quebec City) or use interurban scheduled busess or motorcoaches that will drop you off at some isolated stop (often a general store) near your destination. And then you make your way from there.

You can even do this via Orléans Express out of Quebec City to get to the Parc du Bic in the Bas-St-Laurent.

If you want to. But they didn't.

They wouldn't have done it much differently had they visited similar places in Europe.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by umbria27

You are absolutely right on the lack of objection to specific greenfields developments. I've posted on this before. Unless it's a wilderness that somebody is using for leisure activities like the South March Highlands, nobody objects. I think part of this is just lack of visibility. There's no story in the paper or on the CBC when a new green field development is proposed. The people living immediately adjacent to it bought a similar green field tract house 5 years previously, so they don't care.
The only time I see these developments is when I go out of town and see houses where I previously saw fields. We need a mayor and council brave enough to put a process in place that actively impedes sprawl.

Back to the infamous Danish letter and the subsequent brouhaha, I find the reaction hilarious. There's so much knee-jerk defensiveness. Surely this isn't a controversial topic. Our cities are overly car centric. We need to change this to make more liveable cities. Apparently we don't like being told so by Danish couch surfers.

I'm personally shocked at how much backlash their letter has gotten. I will be the first to admit that I've never been to Europe and know very little about how cities are laid out there. But I have traveled and these people do have a valid point about some of our cities. I never thought twice about this stuff before I ever traveled, but after spending a month in Mexico and discovered that suburban dwellers don't have to drive 15 minutes to the nearest grocery store and discovered kids going outside and playing, I was almost horrified to go back to my home suburban area and see nothing but houses and nobody outside. The fact that people are getting their backs up just validates their point all the more. As humans we are naturally programmed to think that our way of doing things is "the best", but it isn't always superior. The suburban lifestyle of living in "quiet neighbourhoods" and driving long distances to get groceries is a cherished way of life in many Canadian cities.

Instead of just condemning them, people need to pause and think about what they're saying. We can learn a lot from the perspectives of people from other countries. Although some tact may be missing, people need to look past that and look at the message. It's worth an academic debate.

[eemy]

I think most people acknowledge they aren't wrong about what they are saying. I would say more people are justifiably bothered by how rude such a letter is, and the fact that we are already well aware of the planning challenges we face, thank you very much.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Instead of just condemning them, people need to pause and think about what they're saying. We can learn a lot from the perspectives of people from other countries. Although some tact may be missing, people need to look past that and look at the message. It's worth an academic debate.

They aren't saying anything I've never said.

[S-Man]

While we're having that academic debate, let's also discuss why bestiality is legal in Denmark.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by S-Man

While we're having that academic debate, let's also discuss why bestiality is legal in Denmark.

Ewww! You have killed Danish bacon for me forever!

[umbria27]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

But don't you get the irony of it all? Here's her response to one of the comments to the article:

So they drove around the country, saw it from the perspective of a car, and complained that it was car-centric. It's kind of like a smoker complaining that the room is too smoky.

<snip>

If she was sincere about her concern for car-centrism, she could have taken the train or bus, or ride a bike. If her excuse for renting a car was that it was cheaper and faster than any of these modes, then bingo she's right on the money regarding our North American habits.

Perhaps, but I think this puts too much onus on the author of the critique to be flawless. I own a car. Surely I can still criticise our over-reliance on the car? No? I think there are trips that are best made by car. I don't object to someone driving from Ottawa to Algonquin park for example. I might object to someone driving from Ottawa to Gatineau park.
I took our Danish friends' point to be that the lack of alternative infrastructure forced them to use a car where they would have expected to have been able to take a train or bicycle.