Respectfully, suburban guys want to use urban cores rent free. If people with cars actually paid anything close to market rates for the precious real estate they take up with their cars, then most of them would just walk/bike/bus in the city. Car drivers have the government on their side, so they get heavily subsidized real estate (roads, parking).
I don't think this treatment is very equal or fair. Keep your house and your car (SUV?), but pay real tolls and real parking fees.
The US managed to build cities and suburbs fine before car drivers got government priority.
Similarly, however - urban cores want suburban business without having to deal with the low tax revenue of actual bedrooms. The city of Chicago is instructive, the city is (very slightly) subsidized by suburban consumers and tax revenue. The big trick here is making suburbs without allowing the endless continuation of exurbs
With no street parking, ambulances pass right through.
Also, you don't allow through-traffic of cars.
The only vehicular traffic are taxis (supply limited with licenses), delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles, and those rare people willing to pay $60 to drive into the city to pick up a box or furniture.
I live in a big city like this. Ambulances pass through just fine. The only traffic jams are tolled highways in/out of the city. And those highways are capped at 4 lanes wide with demand moderated with tolls.
If you do a return-on-asset, where asset=sqft of space in a city, you really want to kick out car drivers b/c they are the most space intensive with least return (economic boost/tax revenue). They are like moochers in cafes that buy the cheapest coffee and sit for 5 hours.
I don't think this treatment is very equal or fair. Keep your house and your car (SUV?), but pay real tolls and real parking fees.
The US managed to build cities and suburbs fine before car drivers got government priority.