Yeah and the majority of people in Dhaka where I’m from walk everywhere. The true goal of urbanists and environmentalists is for us to live like we’re impoverished people in the third world.
Nobody wants to walk or take public transit in that heat and humidity. Especially not with two or three kids, or carrying tiffin containers of leftovers after a dinner party. My family members who came over from Dhaka to the US moved to places built around cars as soon as they could afford it. My cousin just moved to Texas (after studying in Queens) and is loving all the open space, the houses with pools, etc.
I can't speak for all environmentalists but I'd like people to live pleasantly wherever they like if they can do so sustainably. Probably most Dhaka residents, like most people anywhere, would prefer to stay in their home city and country if possible, just improved. In any case giving everyone in the world a Texas-sized house and pool is not on the table no matter what until we invent personal fusion generators and matter replicators.
Having climate-controlled walkways or more comfortable transit options specifically for people with kids should be available in every city, "impoverished" or "third world" or not. The world certainly has the resources for it.
Bangladesh has about the same population density as the Houston metro area. So it would be totally possible for most people to have cars and houses if it became an advanced service economy.
> I can't speak for all environmentalists but I'd like people to live pleasantly wherever they like if they can do so sustainably.
It's not really up to environmentalists in the first world.
> Probably most Dhaka residents, like most people anywhere, would prefer to stay in their home city and country if possible, just improved. In any case giving everyone in the world a Texas-sized house and pool is not on the table no matter what until we invent personal fusion generators and matter replicators.
I think that's an accurate reflection of what people's end goals are, yes. Using technology to increase the standard of living, just as in western countries.
We are also predominantly complaining about people in the "first world" disregarding the environment due to minor convenience and unfortunate economics.
(But we only have one planet for now, and as things are, nobody is entitled to a free pass to be environmentally irresponsible anymore.)
Indeed, when you bike to work you're mimicking truly impoverished people like Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark.
Sometimes I wonder if aggressively pro-car anti-bicycle people ever tried using a bicycle seriously...
Similarly, biking to work does not make you impoverished. Having to bike to work, or living in a society where most people bike to work, strongly suggests you are impoverished.
In Denmark at least, most people bike to work, so the latter part is at least objectively false.
In case anyone is curious, the following PDF provides some statistics on this issue: https://trimis.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/project/docu...
Tldr: 20% of commuting trips are by bicycle, 13% by public transport, and 60% by private car/van. Of all travel miles, 5% are by bicycle, 10% by public transport, and 77% are by car/van.