On the one hand, by the principle of charity, what was meant was that modern cities can't function without automobiles, not that ancient Sumeria required automobiles. Straw man.
On the other hand, by the principle of charity, what's being argued is that modern cities can't dump all automobiles immediately; not the idea that modern technology is too feeble to allow a city design without automobiles to function at all. Straw woman.
On the third hand, by the principle of charity, what is being argued is that most automobiles can be dropped from large parts of modern cities with more gain than loss; not that entire metropolitan and suburban areas can drop cars without inconvenience. Straw pronoun of your choice.
In other words, none of the arguments here are what they appear to be about superficially. They're really about degree of difficulty - is that underestimated or over-estimated? vs the benefits: more or less than you'd think. To argue that, you need details, which are in short supply until the experiments get not just to your city but to your block.
It's in good part an argument about network effects - and we aren't used to taking those into account properly.
Where I live, the standard argument as bike lanes/routes were being (expensively!) built downtown was: "Nobody even uses them!" Which was true as long as the bike routes were all less than a couple kilometers long. Now bike traffic is picking up as routes lengthen and multiply; so I rarely if ever hear that argument. Now what I hear is "you still need a car" because few bike routes are very long as yet, rather than objections to bike lanes in the middle of streets (or displacing streets) existing at all. Soon it will be "where I live you still need a car." Finally, when the lanes are built out, which they will be, the argument will be "I just like the convenience of a car."
My own view now: "I didn't expect this, but I really like that my neighborhood is quieter; which it is because there's now a pocket park right where an intersection used to be, one block from me. Just that change has made a remarkable difference. Damned nice to sit there in relative silence. Watching bikes hum by from time to time."
Right, and those cities were miniscule by today's standards, and their municipal services were terrible. How many times did London burn down before the 20th century? How effective was medieval London's emergency medical services?
> those cities were miniscule by today's standards
Rome had a million people in it 100 BC. There were still large cities. Also most large cities today (Tokyo, Shanghai, London, Paris, New York) have strong public transport systems and most people don't need cars. So you can have large cities where most people live a car-free lifestyle.
> How many times did London burn down before the 20th century?
I think fire codes being enforced & developments in building techniques helped reduced fires, not just that we can drive fire trucks to situations.
They had horse carts then. People weren't cycling to get around. A car is simply a horse cart without the cart and occupies about the same amount of space
C'mon, cities predate cars by thousands of years.