This book spent more time justifying a post-car future than explaining it.
This book skipped the doomsday focus, and there was hardly a mention of the reasons why we should or will move towards a world without cars. This book discussed the ideal architecture in great detail before really even covering cars at the end.
I have a feeling this author doesn’t really care for the doomsday part, and the entire “post car” section of the book was a publishing strategy. Academia is supposed to be obsessed with doomsday, so the book was written around this.
I think city planning and architecture in general is an excessively important topic that is not popular enough. I have lived in many different places, and I promise architecture is the greatest factor for livability.
This book was excellent when it comes to the architecture discussion, but terrible in the small part it switches to talking about cars.
As usual, I feel the tenants supporting doomsday theory are extremely weak and not worth academic effort to counteract - non problems don’t need fixing.
This book could have had a less interesting title simply about city planning, and I would have no problem. But the idea here is still subtly that “we are destroying the world and cannot go on like this.” I do not believe this, and I believe we can still engineer great human environments without doomsday being mentioned- with or without cars.