Car centric cities and downstream consequences

Even before I was a teenager I eagerly awaited my 16th birthday. 16 meant driving, and driving meant freedom and independence. And before I ever thought about those concepts, I desired their presence in my life.

But in the pursuit of patience, I never considered why a car and the ability to drive equated to freedom and independence. I simply accepted the world as I observed it.

In more recent years, I learned that the perception of the car and the ability to drive was a very American Centric perspective.

But America defines so much of western culture that often the path of least resistance is to accept it and move on.

The ubiquity of car centric design came to characterize much of the 20th and 21st centuries. The way we get to work, shop for groceries, or visit our friends is mediated by turning on a car, driving through traffic, and arriving across town only to repeat the process on the way back.

A car centric city is prohibitive for so many. Though it’s undeniable that as one of the largest consumer purchases, it drives GDP perhaps more than any other single discretionary purchase. Car centric design truly is a mixed bag when it comes to how we actually live.

The reality is that a vehicle can act as a gatekeeping device. If some places can’t be reached without a vehicle it means that people who can’t afford one wont be able to go there. Implicitly we all buy into the system that says we’re okay with a minimum barrier to entry to participate in a large part of society. That inevitably drives a divide between the haves and have nots.

So the next time you think about what vehicle ownership means, think about what it also limits when our places are willingly structured to require one.