How interstates gutted American cities article

[paulthemapguy]

Sprawl leads to decreased sustainability.  In areas with less dense development patterns, residents have to drive everywhere to get what they need, leaving behind more air pollution, carbon emissions, etc.  This also racks up greater transportation costs.  Not to mention this takes up more land that could otherwise be used for farming or habitats.  I say this living on the edge of the Chicago suburbs where everyone has a big honkin' yard and a white picket fence.

As for towns popping up where the roads are...In America, towns typically would pop up along key transportation corridors, which in the 19th century meant waterways and later, railroads.  Then, auto routes would connect those towns...meaning the major highways often would parallel the railroads, shorelines or rivers that birthed the towns to begin with. 

[SP Cook]

how can zoning laws be changed to better address the problem of sprawl?

That assumes "sprawl" is a problem. I don't consider it to be such, and in fact I think the use of the word "sprawl" is one of those with a negative connotation that is used intentionally.

I don't think that development of vacant land is a problem.

Exactly.  In fact "the development of vacant land", one could argue, is the basic goal of humanity from day one.

Sprawl is a pejorative for something that is actually good.  It is a combination of growth, prosperity, personal choice, and upward class mobility. 

But, of course, new urbanism is a positivism for something that is actually bad.  It is a combination of decay, decline, rigid class structure and the elite deciding how OTHERS should live.

[MikeTheActuary]

That assumes "sprawl" is a problem. I don't Sprawl is a pejorative for something that is actually good.  It is a combination of growth, prosperity, personal choice, and upward class mobility.

Isn't part of the "problem" of sprawl a lack of specificity over the definition of the term?

I recently considered taking a job in an office outside Atlanta.  One of the downsides had I taken the job was the unfortunate fact that finding an acceptable place to live would have necessitated having a 60-90 minute commute each way.

Some of that, of course, is a conflict in the definition of "acceptable" versus what is available in the local market.  ("Acceptable" to me involves a certain price range, having a bedroom+full bath+laundry room on the main floor due to having a disabled family member, having at least a little bit of space to pursue a hobby or two, AND not being subject to the whims of a homeowners association.) 

But some of that is also the result of having limited choices in commute paths, partly due to terrain, and partly perhaps due to development following a pattern where individual developers get to create private street networks that only serve to funnel people in-from/out-to a few heavily-utilized thoroughfares.

You'd think that there would be a way for planners to nudge development in a way that tolerates (now seemingly politically incorrect) low- to moderate-density development, provides for a transportation network that will meet likely demands, and encourages a variety of housing options in a local area, rather than forcing folks like me to look further and further out along the same few, overutilized highways.

[MisterSG1]

What we always hear from these so called planners is the obese man-belt analogy, I'm sure we've all heard it, widening freeways to help traffic flow is akin to an obese man trying to lose weight by buying a larger belt.

The main problem with this argument is that it assumes being a large city in the first place is inherently a bad thing to begin with.

The thing to understand about "sprawl" is that if the consumer didn't want sprawl, it wouldn't happen. I'm referring to developers who build new subdivisions which always completely sell out. Obviously such a demand exists for people to want to live in suburbia, and that's the freedom we have in our society, a freedom my grandfather went on the ocean for in World War II.

It seems people like Bruce demand our cities be certain ways to restrict freedom, and Bruce, if you do not like the way things are here in North America, you are free to go across the Pacific to China, since you seem to like an authoritative model to planning.

Before such expansion out in the suburbia would require the governments playing along to meet the demands of the new communities, such as widening existing freeways, building new freeways, but over the last 20 years, it seems as if governments (at least here in the GTA) are vehemently opposed to any such widenings nowadays. Mind you, they WILL widen a road if HOV lanes are involved in the expansion. The government hates the freedom we have and wants us all to stand shoulder to shoulder on the bus, and being ordered when I can take the bus (by means of a schedule) is not the freedom that my grandfather fought for.

Sure, if you want to live in a glass box in the sky downtown, by all means be my guest, but why are you people in downtown so adamant on how I live my life, whatever happened to live and let live? The new condo developments in Toronto that the millennials flooded are supposedly the places we want to live, I'm talking about Liberty Village and CityPlace as examples, but if you actually visit those neighborhoods, one feeling comes off to me..."cold". Something feels very cold about these developments, it's condos with stores on the bottom and nothing else....no neighborhood. It kind of feels like an urban suburbia in a strange sort of way.

As Bruce says, forcing higher development is what they should be after, but all this has done has crippled the transit infrastructure even more, the King Streetcar in Toronto is shoulder to shoulder nearly all hours of the day....it's gotten to the point where these same millennials who hate cars and seem to love government regulation, love to order Uber so they can get across the city in a private vehicle and much more peacefully than the streetcar. Even if it means paying three times the price of the streetcar. I know, I have first hand experience of Ubering the millennials who "condo hop", that is going from one condo neighborhood to another.

It seems governments are going to make new subdivisions very undesirable to live by not building or widening existing freeways to easily get to these suburbs, perhaps new freeways may get built, but they will be overpriced 407 schemes which at the end of the day are good for nothing.

[kalvado]

Energy (oil) spent on commute is probably the only valid reason towards denser packaging.
Understanding of job locations compared to residential locations is probably the key to organizing cities - but that task is way beyond the intellectual  level of most, if not all, of those involved in planning. Mobility between jobs is one of very strong factors of US economy; exact opposite to living in a dorm just above production floor of Chinese factory - and turning homeless upon termination as a bonus. placement of businesses  so that they are within the reach of residential areas, have enough room for growth and don't interfere with everyday residential life is a challenge. EIther there are industrial areas, and noone want to live close to them or inner city skyscrapers  driving property values up and up - but we end up with no proper mix.
Proper public transportation is astronomically expensive, either due to engineering structures, or/and due to labor costs. A really huge cost absorbed by personal car drivers is cost of their time behind the wheel along with liability for any mishaps, and both have to be paid in cash at face value for public transportation...

[kalvado]

It seems people like Bruce demand our cities be certain ways to restrict freedom, and Bruce, if you do not like the way things are here in North America, you are free to go across the Pacific to China, since you seem to like an authoritative model to planning.

Like it or not, but restricting freedom is the way things actually work. Your boss tells you to report by 9 AM? That is a restriction! Traffic light turns red, and you have to stop? Another restriction! Posted speed limit? Blatant violation of basic human rights! 

Of course, you are free to quit your job and buy a farm is the middle of nowhere. No posted speed limits, traffic lights; flexible hours, no cops or firefighters within hour of driving - comes with tons of hard work and personal responsibility, though. But once you're in the city, you have to drive paved roads, walk on sidewalks, use bathrooms properly, pay taxes, follow every written  law and coordinate your actions with those around you, at least to some extent. City planning actually part of that deal, like it or not.

[SP Cook]

Really poor analogies. 

Obviously, your boss can tell you what to do.  In return for $$.  An economic relationship having nothing whatsoever to do with what we are talking about. 

As to things like stop lights, again a poor analogy.  Of course basic safety rules are necessary.  What is not necessary is some elite deciding that of two possible and equally valid and safe choices, he knows better than you what you should do. 

[kalvado]

Really poor analogies. 

Obviously, your boss can tell you what to do.  In return for $$.  An economic relationship having nothing whatsoever to do with what we are talking about. 

As to things like stop lights, again a poor analogy.  Of course basic safety rules are necessary.  What is not necessary is some elite deciding that of two possible and equally valid and safe choices, he knows better than you what you should do.

OK, what about building roundabout on your daily commute path - is that a good enough analogy?

[silverback1065]

What we always hear from these so called planners is the obese man-belt analogy, I'm sure we've all heard it, widening freeways to help traffic flow is akin to an obese man trying to lose weight by buying a larger belt.

The main problem with this argument is that it assumes being a large city in the first place is inherently a bad thing to begin with.

The thing to understand about "sprawl" is that if the consumer didn't want sprawl, it wouldn't happen. I'm referring to developers who build new subdivisions which always completely sell out. Obviously such a demand exists for people to want to live in suburbia, and that's the freedom we have in our society, a freedom my grandfather went on the ocean for in World War II.

It seems people like Bruce demand our cities be certain ways to restrict freedom, and Bruce, if you do not like the way things are here in North America, you are free to go across the Pacific to China, since you seem to like an authoritative model to planning.

Before such expansion out in the suburbia would require the governments playing along to meet the demands of the new communities, such as widening existing freeways, building new freeways, but over the last 20 years, it seems as if governments (at least here in the GTA) are vehemently opposed to any such widenings nowadays. Mind you, they WILL widen a road if HOV lanes are involved in the expansion. The government hates the freedom we have and wants us all to stand shoulder to shoulder on the bus, and being ordered when I can take the bus (by means of a schedule) is not the freedom that my grandfather fought for.

Sure, if you want to live in a glass box in the sky downtown, by all means be my guest, but why are you people in downtown so adamant on how I live my life, whatever happened to live and let live? The new condo developments in Toronto that the millennials flooded are supposedly the places we want to live, I'm talking about Liberty Village and CityPlace as examples, but if you actually visit those neighborhoods, one feeling comes off to me..."cold". Something feels very cold about these developments, it's condos with stores on the bottom and nothing else....no neighborhood. It kind of feels like an urban suburbia in a strange sort of way.

As Bruce says, forcing higher development is what they should be after, but all this has done has crippled the transit infrastructure even more, the King Streetcar in Toronto is shoulder to shoulder nearly all hours of the day....it's gotten to the point where these same millennials who hate cars and seem to love government regulation, love to order Uber so they can get across the city in a private vehicle and much more peacefully than the streetcar. Even if it means paying three times the price of the streetcar. I know, I have first hand experience of Ubering the millennials who "condo hop", that is going from one condo neighborhood to another.

It seems governments are going to make new subdivisions very undesirable to live by not building or widening existing freeways to easily get to these suburbs, perhaps new freeways may get built, but they will be overpriced 407 schemes which at the end of the day are good for nothing.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, you are a millennial, and this constant anger toward millennials is tired and annoying.  Just because we have a different way of doing things than previous generations, doesn't mean you need to attack us for being different. There is absolutely nothing wrong with getting an Uber/Lyft, and without bus schedules, you basically are describing uber/lyft carpool.  In fact your statement about bus schedules makes no sense at all.  People, especially now, want more choices to get around than just a car, and cities are slowly trying to accommodate that.  The reason why people are arguing against "sprawl" and suburbs has a lot to do with efficiency of resources, water, fuel, power, everything.  If you live in a city, you have to deal with rules and regulations, if you don't like that, I suggest you move to the rural areas miles away from any city. 

If mixed use development is "cold" and has no "neighborhood" why are they so popular?  Why do they always sell out?  Why do they generate tons of people traffic?  Why have they breathed new life into many of the cities they have been put in?  This just makes me think that you just hate the change in city design, because there is no evidence to back your assertion up. And I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about when you say governments hate our freedom and want us to take the bus, governments are smart enough to know that if everyone drove to work, it will get to the point where every city has traffic that is so bad that it impacts other areas of the city's health.  Governments and city planners and engineers want to have a city to be as efficient as possible, and having great sidewalks, bike lanes, multi use paths, bus routes, subways/street cars, taxis and uber/lyft, will allow the city to work better.  THAT is freedom, if the government were obeying your logic, it would be illegal to own a car and you could only use the bus or uber, no one wants that. If I'm misunderstanding your argument, please clarify what you were saying.

[SP Cook]

OK, what about building roundabout on your daily commute path - is that a good enough analogy?
[/quote]

If it is for safety (whether roundabouts, or for that matter speed limits, are really safety measures is a discussion for another day) fine.  If it an attempt by an elite to make my life somehow less enjoyable and thus force me to do what he (or more often these days, she) thinks is best for me, then it is void, illegitimate and tyrannical.  The elite should live their lives as they wish, and so should I.  And "urban planners" should find real jobs.

[kalvado]

If it is for safety (whether roundabouts, or for that matter speed limits, are really safety measures is a discussion for another day) fine.  If it an attempt by an elite to make my life somehow less enjoyable and thus force me to do what he (or more often these days, she) thinks is best for me, then it is void, illegitimate and tyrannical.  The elite should live their lives as they wish, and so should I.  And "urban planners" should find real jobs.

Of course, officially roundabout comes up to reduce congestion and improve safety. Equally, there are some (a lot) of drivers, who believe primary reason is millions flowing through design and construction companies.
So, does that limit your personal freedom?

[Ned Weasel]

how can zoning laws be changed to better address the problem of sprawl?

I stepped away from the forum for a few days, and then this topic got even more interesting.  To give another answer to this question, since I haven't heard the term used in response to this yet, one important alternative to Euclidean zoning is form-based codes.  Form-based codes regulate buildings' dimensions, setbacks (if any), parcel coverage, etc., but they don't necessarily regulate their use (residential, retail, office, etc.).  Form-based codes are a good tool for mixed-use development.

If you're interested, you can find a wealth of information on form-based codes, the rural-to-urban transect, and so on from the Congress for the New Urbanism's website.  This is a good place to start: https://www.cnu.org/resources/tools

Exactly.  In fact "the development of vacant land", one could argue, is the basic goal of humanity from day one.

Sprawl is a pejorative for something that is actually good.  It is a combination of growth, prosperity, personal choice, and upward class mobility. 

But, of course, new urbanism is a positivism for something that is actually bad.  It is a combination of decay, decline, rigid class structure and the elite deciding how OTHERS should live.

Can you explain why you think decay, decline, and rigid class structure are elements of New Urbanism?  I'm not a leading expert, but everything I've read about New Urbanism suggests it's somewhat the opposite of those.  New Urbanists are generally in favor of preserving inner city areas and preventing their decline and decay.  And New Urbanism advocates mixing housing types and providing mixed-income housing, rather then the thorough separation of housing types that often happens under Euclidean zoning, so I'm not sure how New Urbanism imposes rigid class structure.

If it is for safety (whether roundabouts, or for that matter speed limits, are really safety measures is a discussion for another day) fine.  If it an attempt by an elite to make my life somehow less enjoyable and thus force me to do what he (or more often these days, she) thinks is best for me, then it is void, illegitimate and tyrannical.  The elite should live their lives as they wish, and so should I.  And "urban planners" should find real jobs.

Obviously you are critical of New Urbanism and what is happening with urban planning today.  That's great, because I, too, think much of it leaves something to be desired.  But criticism isn't very useful unless it's constructive.  So, then, what kind of urbanism do you suggest we should plan?  Urban planning should primarily be concerned with how cities function and answering the question of "what should be built where and why?"  So, what is your view of how cities should function, what should built, where things should be built, etc.?  Is it workable?  What reasoning is it based in?  Don't just dismiss the ideas you're criticizing and fall back on fuzzy rhetoric; offer a constructive critique!

[kalvado]

Can you explain why you think decay, decline, and rigid class structure are elements of New Urbanism?  I'm not a leading expert, but everything I've read about New Urbanism suggests it's somewhat the opposite of those.

There is a difference between wishful thinking and ultimate outcome. Law of unintended consequences is the dominant factor in implementation of any bold plans

Obviously you are critical of New Urbanism and what is happening with urban planning today.  That's great, because I, too, think much of it leaves something to be desired.  But criticism isn't very useful unless it's constructive.  So, then, what kind of urbanism do you suggest we should plan?  Urban planning should primarily be concerned with how cities function and answering the question of "what should be built where and why?" So, what is your view of how cities should function, what should built, where things should be built, etc.?  Is it workable?  What reasoning is it based in?  Don't just dismiss the ideas you're criticizing and fall back on fuzzy rhetoric; offer a constructive critique!

And highlighted portion is THE problem. Primary objective should be people, not city. Remember, people are what make cities alive. You don't want to build framework and force people into it - that is where unintended consequences come into play. That is, people moving out of advanced frameworks, taking their taxes with them. Those who can afford it move first, leaving behind what we call "inner city"

I hear a lot about millenials, who are so fit for city life, don't need car,  stay longer with parents, environmentally minded, and often dont have jobs and so on. Basic question is still if they can afford to pay for that ideal urban system with their taxes; and I didn't see the answer. What I see is complains about non-affordable housing in those vibrant places like NYC and SF, as well as non-affordable education and transit systems pushed to the limits...

[Ned Weasel]

Can you explain why you think decay, decline, and rigid class structure are elements of New Urbanism?  I'm not a leading expert, but everything I've read about New Urbanism suggests it's somewhat the opposite of those.

There is a difference between wishful thinking and ultimate outcome. Law of unintended consequences is the dominant factor in implementation of any bold plans

There's also a difference between broad generalizations and details, and New Urbanism is concerned with the details.

Obviously you are critical of New Urbanism and what is happening with urban planning today.  That's great, because I, too, think much of it leaves something to be desired.  But criticism isn't very useful unless it's constructive.  So, then, what kind of urbanism do you suggest we should plan?  Urban planning should primarily be concerned with how cities function and answering the question of "what should be built where and why?" So, what is your view of how cities should function, what should built, where things should be built, etc.?  Is it workable?  What reasoning is it based in?  Don't just dismiss the ideas you're criticizing and fall back on fuzzy rhetoric; offer a constructive critique!

And highlighted portion is THE problem. Primary objective should be people, not city. Remember, people are what make cities alive. You don't want to build framework and force people into it - that is where unintended consequences come into play. That is, people moving out of advanced frameworks, taking their taxes with them. Those who can afford it move first, leaving behind what we call "inner city"

I don't see how that's a helpful argument.  I don't think anyone is seriously trying to design cities without regard for how people use them.  My point is, if one is going to critique a city plan or a model for urbanism, he or she should recognize that a city isn't just a passive space; it's something that functions--and any critique should suggest how a city might function better, rather than dismissing the idea and resorting to vague rhetoric.  I don't think you'd trust a car mechanic who didn't know how cars functioned, and you probably wouldn't want to hire a computer technician who didn't have a good idea of how computers work.  So don't you think urban planners should have a good understanding of how cities function?

I hear a lot about millenials, who are so fit for city life, don't need car,  stay longer with parents, environmentally minded, and often dont have jobs and so on. Basic question is still if they can afford to pay for that ideal urban system with their taxes; and I didn't see the answer. What I see is complains about non-affordable housing in those vibrant places like NYC and SF, as well as non-affordable education and transit systems pushed to the limits...

Many different factors can influence housing prices.  Sometimes it's geographical constraints, which are hard to avoid.  Sometimes it's bad policy, in which case it should be revised.  But I'm not sure what you're arguing here.  If you're arguing for a form of urbanism in which practically everyone gets around by car, you have to remember that housing and transit systems aren't the only things that are expensive; cars and roads come with their own costs, too, which should be obvious to anyone who uses a car and cares about roads.

[kalvado]

There's also a difference between broad generalizations and details, and New Urbanism is concerned with the details.

Sure, now the question is about ability to do so.

I don't see how that's a helpful argument.  I don't think anyone is seriously trying to design cities without regard for how people use them.

My feeling is that urbanism is just about that - design for the sake of design paradigm. It's not only urbanist sin - for example, roundabout designers are guilty on thousands counts as well.

  My point is, if one is going to critique a city plan or a model for urbanism, he or she should recognize that a city isn't just a passive space; it's something that functions--and any critique should suggest how a city might function better, rather than dismissing the idea and resorting to vague rhetoric. 

You don't have to be a chief to notice your steak is made of rotten meat...

I don't think you'd trust a car mechanic who didn't know how cars functioned, and you probably wouldn't want to hire a computer technician who didn't have a good idea of how computers work.  So don't you think urban planners should have a good understanding of how cities function?

ABSOLUTELY!! And much, much more than that! Unfortunately, I have an impression they don't have a clue.

Many different factors can influence housing prices.  Sometimes it's geographical constraints, which are hard to avoid.  Sometimes it's bad policy, in which case it should be revised.  But I'm not sure what you're arguing here.  If you're arguing for a form of urbanism in which practically everyone gets around by car, you have to remember that housing and transit systems aren't the only things that are expensive; cars and roads come with their own costs, too, which should be obvious to anyone who uses a car and cares about roads.

I am arguing that "designers" don't understand the economic and social implications of those designs. And housing prices are a very obvious manifestation of the problem.  See "how the city work" comment above. It is not about cars or public transportation, question is with indoctrination about certain model (urbanism) and failure - more likely inability - to develop critical approach to either model and come up with a workable system. I don't want to get politics involved, but upcoming Trump /Clinton II duel is a good example of how things tend to work: extremes without middle grounds.
ANd if design can ever become human-centric, with understanding that problems involved are much more complex than being able to walk to a store and get a carton of milk, things may finally settle to something better than what we have, and much better that dark urban future.


//edited for correct quote layout

[paulthemapguy]

Exactly.  In fact "the development of vacant land", one could argue, is the basic goal of humanity from day one.

What.  So who was it who ordained that we humans were destined to reproduce and develop all the land until our vermin offspring completely cover the Earth?   No.  The basic goal of humanity is not to consume.  There's nothing good about taking until there's nothing left.  This sounds like Manifest Destiny all over again.

Sprawl is a pejorative for something that is actually good.  It is a combination of growth, prosperity, personal choice, and upward class mobility. 

I don't think sprawl has to have a positive or negative connotation necessarily.  Claiming that it's an offensive word is a choice to be offended when no one was looking to be offensive or accusatory to begin with.  Also, can you measure growth and prosperity merely in terms of the property owned by people?  Is success or happiness measured in square feet or acres?  Having more stuff doesn't make you a better or happier person necessarily; it's more complicated than that.  In addition, there comes a point where the freedom to acquire resources is hindered by the existence of a finite supply.  If you run out of resources...well, that freedom you had to acquire/distribute/trade/own them is taken away from you.  I think the idea of this "New Urbanism" is to keep people from consuming too much land/space/resources before we run the supply dry.

But, of course, new urbanism is a positivism for something that is actually bad.  It is a combination of decay, decline, rigid class structure and the elite deciding how OTHERS should live.

Mind you, your claim that this "New Urbanism" is bad is only your opinion.  I can see both sides of it really.  The idea is to make people consume responsibly, and to discourage those who take and take with no cap on their gluttony.

[SP Cook]

Can you explain why you think decay, decline, and rigid class structure are elements of New Urbanism?


So, then, what kind of urbanism do you suggest we should plan?   

Prior to WWII, people were, more or less, forced to live in unpleasant urban environments.   Environments that were unnatural, unhealthy, and fundamentally undesireable to most people.  After the war, wise politicians of both parties (and actually of many parties since the same kind of thing happend throughout the First World) and, much more importantly, private businessmen made it possible for people to live in much more pleasant conditions.  As wisely stated above "sprawl exists because people want it to".   In cities, especially old cities, people lived and died in the same area, segregated by race and "class" and were forced to rent, and shop, and worship, and vote, and work, and transit, with the controling elite.  But in the wonderful suburbs, people could, and still can, do as they wish, and are afforded oppertunities their parents never had.  The ability to tell the urban landlord to shove it up his a** and buy a home.  The ability to work where they wish.  To vote as they wish.  To do as they wish.  Freedom.

You did mention "mixed income" housing.  That is not my goal.  I don't want to see poor people and middle class people living together.  I want to foster an economic condition where poor people become middle class people. 

You second question is far simpler.  Nothing.  The job of government is not to "plan" anything.  Which is to say force via taxes, not providing proper services, or any other policy, people to do what they would not do if free to choose.  It is to provide services that people want and need.  If people want suburbs, build more roads, more light rail, more whatever people want to acomplish what they want.  Because on this earth only one thing is perfect.  The Market.  Because the Market is the expressed will of people.  The job of governement, re the Market, is to simply respond to it, not to try to alter it.

[SP Cook]

What.  So who was it who ordained that we humans were destined to reproduce and develop all the land until our vermin offspring completely cover the Earth?   No.  The basic goal of humanity is not to consume.  There's nothing good about taking until there's nothing left.

Obviously you see people as "vermin".  I see them as God's greatest creation. 

If you feel you are a "vermin", by all means take yourself out.

But first, you might want to read up on previous idiocy like Thomas Malthus, Daniel Quinn, The Club of Rome,  and other such not-so-deep thinkers, who all were cock-sure the world could not possibably support a population of, umm, tiny fractions of what it supports today.

Fact is, we are not running out of land (drive across Montana and get back to me on that), nor energy (just the political will to use energy wisely), nor food, nor anything else.  In fact, God's gift to us is so wonderful that we have barely use one-millionith of one percent of what He has made for us.  The future, given wise policies, is so very bright.  For many times the people the world supports today, all, yes ALL, living far better than we ever dreamed of. 

[vdeane]

Meanwhile, if the rest of the world started living like the US, we would absolute run out of everything.  And, as far as I'm concerned it is the RIGHT of every single human being to live a middle class lifestyle.  Additionally, plants/animals/the other 4 kingdoms of lifeforms all need their own space to thrive, and a planet without scenic wilderness is not worth having.  So, reconciling all this together without mass genocide, extinction, or destroying the planet is the challenge of the era.

[hbelkins]

What.  So who was it who ordained that we humans were destined to reproduce and develop all the land until our vermin offspring completely cover the Earth?   No.  The basic goal of humanity is not to consume.  There's nothing good about taking until there's nothing left.

Obviously you see people as "vermin".  I see them as God's greatest creation. 

If you feel you are a "vermin", by all means take yourself out.

But first, you might want to read up on previous idiocy like Thomas Malthus, Daniel Quinn, The Club of Rome,  and other such not-so-deep thinkers, who all were cock-sure the world could not possibably support a population of, umm, tiny fractions of what it supports today.

Fact is, we are not running out of land (drive across Montana and get back to me on that), nor energy (just the political will to use energy wisely), nor food, nor anything else.  In fact, God's gift to us is so wonderful that we have barely use one-millionith of one percent of what He has made for us.  The future, given wise policies, is so very bright.  For many times the people the world supports today, all, yes ALL, living far better than we ever dreamed of.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[silverback1065]

What.  So who was it who ordained that we humans were destined to reproduce and develop all the land until our vermin offspring completely cover the Earth?   No.  The basic goal of humanity is not to consume.  There's nothing good about taking until there's nothing left.

Obviously you see people as "vermin".  I see them as God's greatest creation. 

If you feel you are a "vermin", by all means take yourself out.

But first, you might want to read up on previous idiocy like Thomas Malthus, Daniel Quinn, The Club of Rome,  and other such not-so-deep thinkers, who all were cock-sure the world could not possibably support a population of, umm, tiny fractions of what it supports today.

Fact is, we are not running out of land (drive across Montana and get back to me on that), nor energy (just the political will to use energy wisely), nor food, nor anything else.  In fact, God's gift to us is so wonderful that we have barely use one-millionith of one percent of what He has made for us.  The future, given wise policies, is so very bright.  For many times the people the world supports today, all, yes ALL, living far better than we ever dreamed of.

We may not be running out of land, but your arguments about not running out of energy are merely opinions not supported by facts.  The facts are that several means of current energy we use are running out, or not sustainable, there is only a finite amount of any fossil fuel out there, renewable energy will run out too, but this won't happen for so long it's irrelevant.  Mostly this and your other statement about government are purely philosophical.  How is nothing going to solve the problem? And explain to me how you aren't an "elitist" yourself by making those statements?  You are also presuming you know better than others and you're right about everything.  Explain to me how engineers are somehow flawed in their roundabout design, do you even know how a roundabout is designed?  The studies they conduct to choose which intersection feature should be there to begin with?  And explain to me how Urban planners, don't know what they are doing, rather than doing things you don't agree with?  If you're going to spout ideas, give me facts, because you have given me no reason to believe anything other than that you're an elitist yourself. 

[kalvado]

What.  So who was it who ordained that we humans were destined to reproduce and develop all the land until our vermin offspring completely cover the Earth?   No.  The basic goal of humanity is not to consume.  There's nothing good about taking until there's nothing left.

Obviously you see people as "vermin".  I see them as God's greatest creation. 

If you feel you are a "vermin", by all means take yourself out.

But first, you might want to read up on previous idiocy like Thomas Malthus, Daniel Quinn, The Club of Rome,  and other such not-so-deep thinkers, who all were cock-sure the world could not possibably support a population of, umm, tiny fractions of what it supports today.

Fact is, we are not running out of land (drive across Montana and get back to me on that), nor energy (just the political will to use energy wisely), nor food, nor anything else.  In fact, God's gift to us is so wonderful that we have barely use one-millionith of one percent of what He has made for us.  The future, given wise policies, is so very bright.  For many times the people the world supports today, all, yes ALL, living far better than we ever dreamed of.

We may not be running out of land, but your arguments about not running out of energy are merely opinions not supported by facts.  The facts are that several means of current energy we use are running out, or not sustainable, there is only a finite amount of any fossil fuel out there, renewable energy will run out too, but this won't happen for so long it's irrelevant.  Mostly this and your other statement about government are purely philosophical.  How is nothing going to solve the problem? And explain to me how you aren't an "elitist" yourself by making those statements?  You are also presuming you know better than others and you're right about everything.  Explain to me how engineers are somehow flawed in their roundabout design, do you even know how a roundabout is designed?  The studies they conduct to choose which intersection feature should be there to begin with?  And explain to me how Urban planners, don't know what they are doing, rather than doing things you don't agree with?  If you're going to spout ideas, give me facts, because you have given me no reason to believe anything other than that you're an elitist yourself.

Mr. silverback, you're probably either a traffic engineer or an urban planner, right?

[silverback1065]

What.  So who was it who ordained that we humans were destined to reproduce and develop all the land until our vermin offspring completely cover the Earth?   No.  The basic goal of humanity is not to consume.  There's nothing good about taking until there's nothing left.

Obviously you see people as "vermin".  I see them as God's greatest creation. 

If you feel you are a "vermin", by all means take yourself out.

But first, you might want to read up on previous idiocy like Thomas Malthus, Daniel Quinn, The Club of Rome,  and other such not-so-deep thinkers, who all were cock-sure the world could not possibably support a population of, umm, tiny fractions of what it supports today.

Fact is, we are not running out of land (drive across Montana and get back to me on that), nor energy (just the political will to use energy wisely), nor food, nor anything else.  In fact, God's gift to us is so wonderful that we have barely use one-millionith of one percent of what He has made for us.  The future, given wise policies, is so very bright.  For many times the people the world supports today, all, yes ALL, living far better than we ever dreamed of.

We may not be running out of land, but your arguments about not running out of energy are merely opinions not supported by facts.  The facts are that several means of current energy we use are running out, or not sustainable, there is only a finite amount of any fossil fuel out there, renewable energy will run out too, but this won't happen for so long it's irrelevant.  Mostly this and your other statement about government are purely philosophical.  How is nothing going to solve the problem? And explain to me how you aren't an "elitist" yourself by making those statements?  You are also presuming you know better than others and you're right about everything.  Explain to me how engineers are somehow flawed in their roundabout design, do you even know how a roundabout is designed?  The studies they conduct to choose which intersection feature should be there to begin with?  And explain to me how Urban planners, don't know what they are doing, rather than doing things you don't agree with?  If you're going to spout ideas, give me facts, because you have given me no reason to believe anything other than that you're an elitist yourself.

Mr. silverback, you're probably either a traffic engineer or an urban planner, right?

Transportation civil engineer, I don't deal with city planning, I just find it fascinating.  And I don't deal with traffic in the research way, I'm more of a designer.  I try to keep up on all urban design and traffic stories I can though, I like to hear about opinions and new innovations.  I started this topic to debate ideas on the topic and I like all the differing ideas I am hearing.

[silverback1065]

What annoys me about some of the comments I get regarding issues like this is the idea that designers, planners, and others involved are almost always doing things to hurt the public.  Yes, in the past this has occurred and can even happen now, but I and so many of us in this field aren't in it to ruin and destroy, we serve the public, and I take that seriously.  We design things for cities to solve problems, yes, sometimes solutions don't always fix all problems, but this idea of "they don't know what they're talking about... This is ruining everything!" really pisses me off because these people rarely have any ideas themselves.  (this is obviously not a blanket statement! Sometimes the public has a great idea, just convey it, which doesn't happen often!)

[kalvado]

What annoys me about some of the comments I get regarding issues like this is the idea that designers, planners, and others involved are almost always doing things to hurt the public.  Yes, in the past this has occurred and can even happen now, but I and so many of us in this field aren't in it to ruin and destroy, we serve the public, and I take that seriously.  We design things for cities to solve problems, yes, sometimes solutions don't always fix all problems, but this idea of "they don't know what they're talking about... This is ruining everything!" really pisses me off because these people rarely have any ideas themselves.  (this is obviously not a blanket statement! Sometimes the public has a great idea, just convey it, which doesn't happen often!)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...