If this is what you want then you should look at cities that developed pre-World War II or look at creating your own. Cities that are "car centric" are less about some obsession with cars and more that people buying a place to live didn't want to live in dense urban areas: https://www.newgeography.com/content/004453-urban-cores-core... One comment that stuck out to me on this page was:

> The central cities with the largest functional urban core percentages have overwhelmingly suffered large population losses. Among the 25 with the largest urban core shares, only seven were at their peak populations at the 2010 census, and only two of the top 18 (New York and San Francisco). Overall the cities with large functional cores lost more than 35 percent of their population and 8 million residents.

Given this stark difference in preferences, why can we not have cities designed to be carless and cities that are designed to include cars as well as other modes of transportation? I live in Portland where I'm walking distance from the train station, have multiple bus stops around my house, and the average street speed is 30 mph. I can drive ten minutes down the road to get lumber, feed, etc and avoid paying an $80 delivery fee which probably doesn't sound like much until you need to reorder a single board and pay $86 for a $6 2x4.

Takes like this don't help, imo:

> Make our infra as difficult as possible for these modern SUVs and trucks and suddenly the office workers commuting from age Styx will decrease

This kind of message, intended or not, is hostile, divisive, and non-inclusive.