Getting from point A to point B in America
A review of The Immortal Class:
I first heard of The Immortal Class listening to an NPR interview in which the author, Travis Hugh Culley, was trying (with mixed results) to defend his central thesis: that the conception of the American metropolis has centered around the personal automobile as the only practical means of getting from point A to point B, and has done so to the exclusion of all other means of transit — especially the most efficient human powered machine, the bicycle.
OK, I'm sure my bias is showing, but I'm honestly confused here. What's to defend? Is there anyone who maintains that this premise is false? One could argue that it's a function of thoughtlessness rather than deliberate design, sure, but can the resulting effect of car-centrism be disputed? I really don't see how.
You could always consider a more enlightened city. Like, say, Minneapolis. All the cool kids are moving there! Never bike on a major street again! (Except in the very downtown, if for some reason you were going there.)
I am so not a bike nerd. But the concept of a city where bikers have to share the road with cars (and vice versa) seems so uncivilized.
Posted by Timprov on September 18 2002 14:01
Yes, how can it be argued? Only the oldest parts of the oldest cities in North America have streets conceived before the car - and they're now jammed with autos. (I know, I live on one.) And all the newer burbs are completely conceived with the will of the car paramount. Houses that would be pleasant except for the huge double garages out front. Eurgh!
Posted by kate on September 18 2002 14:40