[UnFleshedOne]

Car traffic might be reduced per capita in higher density areas, but all of it is concentrated and is right near all the people. Multiply by the sirens of ambulance and police that are constantly going somewhere. Compare to a dead-end suburb street which only 5-10 cars have any reason for driving at all.

[yaomtc]

You've got it: cars ruin cities. And it can be undone. https://slate.com/business/2023/03/paris-car-ban-bikes-cycli...

[kdmccormick]

Sprawling suburbs are the opposite of nature.

A single large park inside a dense city is far more nature-rich than acres upon acres of suburban lawns are.

[ars]

You've apparently never actually been in a suburb. They typically have random unkempt forests behind each row of houses, and not just a little bit. Like you need a serious walk between houses on different roads, and all of that is a long unbroken piece of nature.

The front of the house near the road has the lawn, but there's a LOT more to suburbs than that.

2 minute walk from where I lived in a suburb was a "forest" as I called it as a child, so large you could get lost. In the suburbs where my relatives live there's more forest with bears, and a there's a creek behind their house.

Yet from the front it's a road with lawns. There's a lot more to suburbs than that road.

Not to mention kids love playing in that road since there's barely any cars. All those car-free threads, about how cars ruin things? Suburban kids already have that: They have barely any cars to contend with.

[Gigachad]

My experience is that dead end suburb streets with no reason to drive on them are constantly used by hoons doing burnouts or modified motorbikes making loads of noise at 1AM