思考与写作progressivetransit.wordpress.com
汽车杀死城市
Cars kill cities
2012 — 2013，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这篇文章认为汽车正在摧毁城市：大量道路和停车场空间被汽车占据，压缩了步行、商业和公共生活的空间，使城市变得不宜居。文章以亚特兰大等美国城市为例，批评以汽车为中心的城市规划。
为什么经久不衰：它触及汽车与城市生活质量的根本矛盾，随着自动驾驶、停车改革等议题持续升温，这一讨论至今仍有现实意义。
HN 评论精选
美国人对汽车的依赖是文化性的，连度假场景都与其他国家截然不同。
去年去夏威夷时我注意到，那里的酒店和泰国、印尼、多米尼加等地类似规模的酒店很不一样：夏威夷的酒店都有巨大的停车库和大量代客泊车员工，而其他地方的几百间客房的酒店可能只有一个小停车场。因为夏威夷的游客都会租车，从机场开十分钟到酒店，停一个星期，再开回机场。这生动地反映了美国人对汽车根深蒂固的态度——有车这件事太深入人心，其他选择根本没有机会。
henrikschroder查看英文原文
When I visited Hawaii last year I noticed that something was different at all the hotels compared to hotels at similar locations elsewhere; Thailand, Indonesia, the Dominican Republic. In Hawaii, all hotels had huge parking garages and a large valet parking staff. Similar-sized hotels in the other locations never had parking garages, hotels with hundreds of rooms might have a tiny parking-lot somewhere, on which a few rental cars would be parked. But in Hawaii, everyone rents a car, drives it the ten minutes from the airport to the hotel, parks it at the hotel, leaves it there for a week, then drives it back to the airport to get home. It's a pretty funny and stark reminder of the completely different mindset and attitude towards cars that most americans have. Having a car is so deeply ingrained that the alternatives don't have a chance.
以阿姆斯特丹为例指出限制停车未必改善生活，问题没有简单答案。
在荷兰，这场讨论早就有了。结果就是像阿姆斯特丹这样的城市故意在市中心少设停车位，而且收费高得离谱。住在市中心的人要么抱怨个不停，要么放弃用车。我不确定这真的帮到了人们：弃车意味着没法方便地去看住在偏远村庄的奶奶；留着车则意味着处处受罪（超贵、没地方停、上高速要很久）。真正的解决办法反而是保留车并搬离市中心——与原文建议完全相反。简言之，我不认为有简单的解决方案。
skrebbel查看英文原文
I think in the Netherlands, we've had this discussion a while ago already. Outcome: cities like Amsterdam have intentionally few parking spaces in the center, and they cost ludicrous amounts of money per hour. People living in the center either complain their asses off, or ditch the car. I'm not sure that this really helped people much. Ditching the car means you can't go visit your grandma in that village without a train station on the other side of the country easily. Keeping the car means everything sucks (super-expensive, no place to put it, takes ages to get from your house to the highway). Real solution: keep the car and move away from the city center, the exact opposite from what the OP is suggesting. Long story short, I doubt there is a simple solution. Back in those wonderful old days, everybody lived 2 miles from their grandmas anyway. (there probably are plenty non-simple solutions though)
文章忽视了汽车的真实便利，减少用车要靠配送等服务而非仅靠公交。
这篇帖子说得对，对那些在汽车出现之前就发展起来的发展中城市来说更是如此。但它也天真了：汽车通常快得多、能遮风挡雨、比拖着行李挤公交省力得多，出行时间也更自由。我成年后有一半时间没车，包括在旧金山湾区的四年，我能应付。但别假装没有取舍——汽车确实非常方便。减少用车需求的关键不只是好的公共交通，而是减少为办事而出门的服务，比如送货上门、洗衣取送和亚马逊。如果不用随身携带东西，只靠公共交通会容易得多。
gress查看英文原文
The post is right, and even more so for developing world cities that emerged before cars were around. However the post is also naive. Cars are usually much faster, provide much better shelter from the weather, and are much less tiring than trying to lug bags from one place to another on buses or other public transport. They also place far fewer constraints on when you can travel. Of course it's possible to structure one's life so as to deal with all of the issues. I have lived half of my adult life without a car, including 4 years in the SF Bay Area, and I managed. But let's stop pretending that there isn't a trade off. Cars are very very convenient. The key to reducing the need for cars is not just good public transport - it's services that reduce the reliance on traveling to get chores done. Things like grocery deliveries, laundry pickup, and amazon.com. It would be a lot easier to rely solely on public transport if you never had to carry anything.
推荐两本关于停车成本与城市发展的经典著作。
如果你对这个话题感兴趣，Donald Shoup 的《The High Cost of Free Parking》和 Edward Glaeser 的《The Triumph of the City》都值得一读。前者解释了'免费'停车其实并不免费，以及它如何扭曲了大量行为；后者讲城市的价值以及如何建设健康的城市。就我个人而言，我不明白如果可以避免，人们为什么还想拥有汽车，不过这可能是少数派观点。
jseliger查看英文原文
If you're interested in this topic, Donald Shoup's The High Cost of Free Parking and Edward Glaeser's The Triumph of the City are both worth reading. The former explains how "free" parking isn't really free and how it distorts a lot of behavior, and the latter is about what cities are good for and how to build healthy cities in general. Personally, I wonder why people would want to own a car if they can avoid it: https://jseliger.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/why-would-you-want-to-own-a-car-if-you-could-avoid-it/ , but that may be a minority viewpoint.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
保持你的身份认同足够小
Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
Paul Graham 2009 年的一篇短文：人一旦把某个话题当成自己身份的一部分（宗教、政治、编程语言皆然），讨论就会退化成站队和争吵，因为此时争论的不再是事实，而是"我是谁…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021paulgraham.com编辑精选苏格拉底式教学法：通过提问而非讲授来教学
The Socratic Method: Teaching by Asking Instead of by Telling
记录了作者用纯提问的方式，引导一群小学生从零推导出二进制计数法的课堂实验，展示了苏格拉底式教学法的惊人效果。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022garlikov.com你不能说的话
What You Can't Say (2004)
Paul Graham 2004 年的经典文章，探讨那些因道德时尚而不能公开说出的观点。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2014–2022paulgraham.com编辑精选龙暴君的寓言（2005）
The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant (2005)
哲学家 Nick Bostrom 于 2005 年写的一则寓言：一条每天吞噬数千人的巨龙（隐喻死亡与衰老）长期被人类当作不可抗拒的自然规律接受，直到有人提出并最终用导弹将其杀死，…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021nickbostrom.com编辑精选现实有着惊人的细节量
Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)
2017 年的博文指出，现实远比我们以为的充满细节：我们习惯用简化的心智模型看世界，直到真正动手做事（比如作者举的造楼梯例子）才发现处处是未曾预料的细节。
思考与写作上首页 4 次 · 2018–2025johnsalvatier.org编辑精选