Jolma Architects

Thank you for this very interesting article.
Although they are useful, I see Pocket Parks more as a cruel defect of public authorities (and private) investment in large public spaces.
Better Pocket Parks than nothing at all but let’s not forget that it’s a patch on a lack of commitment and decision-making.

While I “still” enjoy driving my BMW Z3 convertible sports car…..I really don’t drive around much since I’ve been retired now for a couple of years. BUT, I agree with almost everything written in this article.

I believe walkable cities (that also include bicycles) is a good step in the right direction for America.

A very good “case in point” is if you take a good look at what has been going on in CHINA. Many citizens in China “used” to walk or ride bikes everywhere……then, their economy began to BOOOOOM, big time. So, more and more people began buying and driving cars….instead of walking and biking. The results are terrible!!! The air pollution in China and other SE Asian Nations is so bad, the air is barely breathable. My wife and I watch Asian Dramas on Netflix…and you can see in almost every TV Drama…how terrible the air quality is. I mean, you can SEE how bad it is over there.

I have to admit though, I am “against” the U.S. joining the Paris Agreement…..that was created to solve air and water pollution around the World. IMO, every Nation should be responsible for the own CO2 and water pollution problems……..U.S. taxpayers should NOT be responsible for paying for ANY foreign Nations’ air pollution or water quality problems. We can maybe help “educate” them on HOW to resolve their problems. Even though President Trump has relaxed many of former President Obama’s EPA regulations, I still believe that the U.S. is far ahead of a majority of the World’s nations on cleaning up our own environmental problems.

Good Article!

J. Robert (Bob) Wainner

Hi Bob,

Many thanks for your considered thoughts and comments. Thank you for highlighting China. You make an interesting point. We’re glad you liked the article.
Kind reagrds

Just a few thoughts and opinions here. IMO, if our society were to convert to a transportation system that was, say, even as low as 75% electric driven…..it would put a major strain on our U.S. power grid. Plus, that would make our Nation very vulnerable to cyber attacks by our enemies on our electric grid….and I have read, enemy nations have already been trying to hit our grid. Even North Korea has threatened to do this…one well placed nuke on our electric grid, would paralyze our entire Nation. In addition, the ideas and concepts presented in this article are a bit optimistic to say the least. Maybe, I said “maybe” the U.S. might one day be OK with some of these concepts…but, good luck convincing the rest of the World Nations to do this. Unless we can figure out how to build a “glass dome” over the U.S…how do we keep other Nation’s CO2 emissions out of the U.S.? In addition, it we implemented all of the ideas suggested in this article…going with a somewhat AI driven society…think of ALL of the lost jobs! Taxi & bus drivers, car manufacturing industry, auto repair shops and auto part stores….this list would be very long. And, WHERE does all the financing come from to implement these ideas? More taxes? And, I actually enjoy driving my sports car and going where and when I want to go some place. I don’t want to call a driverless car to come pick me up. Too many of these ideas sound very “utopian” and farfetched, IMO.

J. Robert (Bob) Wainner

Many thanks for taking the time to read our article and for your considered thoughts and opinions.
I agree that many national grids would currently not be able to cope with a 75% market share of electric vehicles. Luckily, we are quite a long way off such a high share. While we need to plan ahead, I think the grid will have time to increase capacity through a diverse portfolio of energy supplies. Also, it is already possible to stagger over-night charging to use the grid when it is in less demand. In fact, it might even be possible to use centralised parking and charging stations to even out some of the fluctuations in green energy production.
As for cyber security and the vulnerabilities of the national grid in the US, you make a good point. This is somewhat outside of the remit of urban design, but no doubt a consideration that should be taken into account.
Regarding decreasing CO2 emissions, any decrease globally is of benefit. Not decreasing net emissions because those of other countries cannot be excluded, does nothing to reduce CO2 and move towards a more sustainable future. Also, CO2 is not the only pollutant caused by vehicles. By decreasing the amount of fossil fuel vehicles on the road, local levels of particulates, CO, NO, SO2 and PAHs are decreased. This has direct health benefits for local neighbourhoods.
You make a good point about the short-term loss of jobs. Many people raise concerns about AI decreasing jobs. However, this will be somewhat off-set by increases in jobs in areas such as servicing, coding/programming, data management, R&D, etc. Throughout history advances in technology has lead to jobs being lost and created. Let’s see where this leads.
I agree with your point about liking to drive your sports car. I’m sure many people enjoy driving. That’s why I think Rethink’s ideas about uber-style fleets of AVs is probably most sensible. I think AVs probably appeal mostly to those who don’t care to drive. As is well documented, fewer millennials are learning to drive. I think in the future there will be fewer and fewer keen drivers which will coincide with an increase in driverless cars.

Best regards,
Ashley D Penn.