Cars do not dominate, they are the low man on the totem pole, and are squeezed in where they can be fitted, but are not allowed to destroy the neighborhood or its communal, living structure.

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• The car must therefore be made to play second fiddle to the pedestrian.claim0.777
  Fundamental priority rule for the four-fold process.
• The car ... caused the loss of control and loss of belonging.claim0.771
  Pinpoints the automobile as a primary agent in the destruction of public space and belonging
• The street is not a thing to drive through, but a series of spaces which are the places where you most want to be.claim0.758
  Redefines the street from a transportation corridor to a sequence of beloved public rooms
• Living configurations are hijackable in the good sense; manufactured systems are brittle to intervention.claim0.756
• The setback regulation in the Lighty house would have destroyed the living space around the great oak tree, illustrating how rigid rules damage wholeness.claim0.755
  Specific example used as evidence that standard zoning rules are insensitive to local wholes.
• An injection of new structure into a place can either respect and enhance the existing wholeness or violate and destroy it; this is an objective structural fact, not merely aesthetic preference.claim0.752
  Alexander's assertion that judgments about whether interventions preserve wholeness are structural and mathematical rather than subjective or romantic.
• "[T]he city is not, cannot, and must not be a tree. The city is a receptacle for life."concept0.750
• How are the hulls of space to be managed, so that they are primarily pedestrian in feeling, yet able to contain the speed, and energy and bustle of small cars and trucks?question0.749
  Practical question about integrating cars without destroying the pedestrian hulls.