I had a couchsurfer this week, a Swedish girl who I met four months ago, she was supposed to stay with me then, disappeared & reappeared this week in urgent need of amnesty. She writes about sustainable cities also, like our Department of Non-Violent Non-Driving, at her weblog, environmentalistonamission.blogspot.com. For complicated reasons involving failed San Franciscan romance, she flew home early today back home to Sweden, & she was just gee-chatting with me from the airplane & writing more reactions of the bay area's urban planning. (I'm not sure if the drama influenced her opinion of San Francisco's public transit.) Her post is charming, so I will repost it word-for-word here:
It's easy to walk in San Francisco for sure, but the city is build for cars with straight roads (with an small exceptions of Lombart steet) and highways in different levels (!) at entrences and exits from busy roads. Where does everyone goes? Where does they come from? Do they need to take their car?
If you take the bay bridge over to Oakland and later to Berkeley you will see the highways in different levels, and maybe you would think in the same way as me- "is that a bridge for a railway?" -"no it was for cars" ""is that a bridge for a railway?!" "-no its another for cars" "that one then?!!!" and you look again and you see a truck like 50 meter up in the air.
Catastrophe!
Also.. when I walk I see things that people in cars doesn't matter (anyway you have to have the eyes on the road), and I just realised that many of both ugly buildings and spaces are just ugly cause noone is never walking there anyway. It's just the cars, and they don't look.
Originally posted here. Catastrophe!
Here's some of our airborne gee-chat, I'm not sure how much of my conspiracy theory is verity or truthiness, but it's worth spreading rumors about nonetheless. Pay closer attention to Judge Doom's plot in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
1 comment:
One of the main reasons I abandoned the West Coast. Cities designed solely for cars.
Post a Comment