http://www.vox.com/2015/5/14/8605917/highways-interstate-cities-history?utm_campaign=vox.social&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook
Interested to see everyone's opinions on this.
I don't disagree with much of it.
The highway system really didn't factor in what inner-city freeways would do to the cities. Or how it would increase the rate of suburban expansion.
Looking back on it, I think a hub and spoke type system would've been better. Think Baltimore's I-83 just ending near downtown. Keep the through route outside of the city (and not directly aligned with reaching through the middle with a gap), build the bypass around the city, and put a few spurs into toward downtown or major areas of interest (stadiums/ports/docks/etc). But, leave the city center relatively unscathed.
Likewise, I agree with some of it, once you get past the hyperbole.
There's some interesting paragraphs in there, like this one: "The plan's key contributors included members of the auto industry (including General Motors CEO Charles Erwin Wilson) and highway engineers. Curiously, urban planners were absent – the profession barely existed at the time."
If their profession didn't exist, how do they get invited in the first place?
Note another area where the article said "...most cities had just ripped up their streetcar networks because they were privately owned systems that weren't making money", then they go on to complain that the interstate highway system has recovered somewhere between 43% & 74% of costs via gas taxes. When you have a study that has that much discrepancy within its own study, the study isn't worth much weight. And what about that money losing streetcar network anyway? If Joe Worker loses the transit system he relied on to get to work, he's probably gonna have to get a car. And now that Joe has a car, why not move to the suburbs to give his family a nice yard?
In the end, maybe the article should be about how the cities laid the groundwork to encourage people to move the suburbs, and the highway system simply provided a convenience for those people to commute back into the city for work.
There is a bunch of reasoning and approaches - but one thing these "urbanist" texts have in common:
How dare those, who actually earn money, choose suburbs over nice, high tax, overcrowded inner cities??
Quote from: kalvado on May 11, 2016, 03:25:35 PM
There is a bunch of reasoning and approaches - but one thing these "urbanist" texts have in common:
How dare those, who actually earn money, choose suburbs over nice, high tax, overcrowded inner cities??
Or, on the extreme, how dare those wealthy families move further into sprawling suburbs and displace rural areas (farmland and forests) and siphon off large amounts of subsidies to build and support services so far away from the cities, while also demanding that urban residents that they left behind be forced to bare the brunt of freeways (air pollution, noise pollution, lack of walkability, etc.) all for the convenience of suburbanites.
Quote from: Bruce on May 11, 2016, 05:19:01 PM
Or, on the extreme, how dare those wealthy families move further into sprawling suburbs and displace rural areas (farmland and forests) and siphon off large amounts of subsidies to build and support services so far away from the cities, while also demanding that urban residents that they left behind be forced to bare the brunt of freeways (air pollution, noise pollution, lack of walkability, etc.) all for the convenience of suburbanites.
One thing here - using walkability example.. Anyone may move into a walkable community any time. Same as anyone may move to a suburb any time... It is about personal choice, you know.
I hear a lot about making people move to inner cities - but I didn't hear about any proposals on disbanding cities, they are just left to die their natural way.
Too many people are personally choosing to fuck the consequences and let the planet burn.
Quote from: kalvado on May 11, 2016, 05:36:20 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 11, 2016, 05:19:01 PM
Or, on the extreme, how dare those wealthy families move further into sprawling suburbs and displace rural areas (farmland and forests) and siphon off large amounts of subsidies to build and support services so far away from the cities, while also demanding that urban residents that they left behind be forced to bare the brunt of freeways (air pollution, noise pollution, lack of walkability, etc.) all for the convenience of suburbanites.
One thing here - using walkability example.. Anyone may move into a walkable community any time. Same as anyone may move to a suburb any time... It is about personal choice, you know.
I hear a lot about making people move to inner cities - but I didn't hear about any proposals on disbanding cities, they are just left to die their natural way.
"Anyone may move into a walkable community any time"...Boy, you need to come over to the West Coast. Housing prices are high for any patch of land that is remotely within walking distance of anything. I'm stuck in the far exurbs where we're seeing massive housing price increases for crappy places like my own. It's just not feasible in this day and age.
If people were corralled closer to cities (using things like urban growth boundaries and restricted development,
in addition to increased density in already-built areas), people would be able to access government services much easier without cars and things would be a little cheaper in terms of transportation costs. While that won't solve the issues of societies, it goes a long way towards upward mobility (of the socioeconomic kind). Also makes it easier to preserve natural lands that should stay as such, as well as working lands that should be producing food and not be turned into brown lawns.
Freeways ruined our cities. They went "Keek! Ruin!" and ruined them all up!
Quote from: kalvado on May 11, 2016, 03:25:35 PM
There is a bunch of reasoning and approaches - but one thing these "urbanist" texts have in common:
How dare those, who actually earn money, choose suburbs over nice, high tax, overcrowded inner cities??
Nobody is saying that people shouldn't be able to choose where to live. Good urban planning though helps encourage people to want to live in a denser urban area. It's not about forcing people, it's about making it more attractive.
See I look at this different than probably most people... How many big American cities or big cities just in general had a well laid out street grid prior to the Interstate system?....not many. Some notable exceptions would be cities like NYC, Phoenix and Salt Lake City which had a huge degree of urban planning. For the most part many of the older American cities were built hodge-podge as they grew in the era of horse and buggy or maybe railroad. Very little consideration was really given for things like urban sprawl or the flow traffic.
For me, I've lived in the three big cities in the U.S. and I can tell you that it's uncomfortable, cramped and generally an unpleasant way to live. How many of you can honestly say you want to live in areas with more than 8,000 people per square mile?...how about 20,000?...how about 45,000? If that's for you that's great but I don't think that a lot of post-war Americans in the Interstate building era wanted that and I think the majority of people today would prefer living in a cushy suburb. More so there was a lot of societal issues in the 1950s and 60s beyond highway building that led to urban sprawl.
My home city was an example of a lot of really bad things across the board beyond the Interstate system being built that caused Metro Detroit to expand....deep rooted social problems that still haven't resolved completely. I think it's awfully callous to call the Interstates the sole cause of American urban decay when there was certainly a lot more factors that led to it. Hell I'm not even touching on the shift in the work force from blue collar to white collar....each had a role.
QuoteThe plan's key contributors included members of the auto industry (including General Motors CEO Charles Erwin Wilson) and highway engineers. Curiously, urban planners were absent – the profession barely existed at the time.
"Highway engineers dominated the decision-making," says DiMento. "They were trained to design without much consideration for how a highway might impact urban fabric – they were worried about the most efficient way of moving people from A to B."
Vox, quit throwing fuel on the fire of urban planners/architects versus engineers. We hate each other enough already! :-P
This also strikes me as a bit... whitewashing of the reality that urban planning absolutely did exist at the time, but the mainstream views at the time were very different. The modern urban planning community would love to disown him, but Robert Moses was an urban planner. And he wasn't the only one.
The fact of the matter is that freeways through cities were often built with the deliberate intent of gutting them, or more specifically slums within them. The same reason neighborhoods were often ripped up to build public housing or civic facilities. The mainstream view at the time was that the best cure for urban blight was to simply bulldoze it and build something new in its place. The fact that freeways could be a source of blight in their own way did not particularly occur to people at the time. Nor did the fact that bulldozing blight does not solve the underlying social ills that cause it, and thus it tends to resurface elsewhere unless those ills are also addressed. We know these things now and it's part of why urban renewal is not undertaken on such grandiose scales anymore.
The other "bug" with the system as it was built is that routing thru traffic directly through the middle of a city is... not really the best way of doing things, since it puts traffic in a congested area that doesn't have any actual need to be there. The model employed by many early toll roads of bypassing cities and making traffic bound for them exit to head into them would be nice, if we had built more roads that way.
Quote from: Bruce on May 11, 2016, 06:51:30 PM
.Boy, you need to come over to the West Coast. Housing prices are high for any patch of land that is remotely within walking distance of anything. I'm stuck in the far exurbs where we're seeing massive housing price increases for crappy places like my own. It's just not feasible in this day and age.
If people were corralled closer to cities (using things like urban growth boundaries and restricted development, in addition to increased density in already-built areas), people would be able to access government services much easier without cars and things would be a little cheaper in terms of transportation costs. While that won't solve the issues of societies, it goes a long way towards upward mobility (of the socioeconomic kind). Also makes it easier to preserve natural lands that should stay as such, as well as working lands that should be producing food and not be turned into brown lawns.
Is it just me, or you want to have a cake, and eat it too? You want to coral people into the city, and at the same time complain that city housing is too expensive for you?
Same old well-plowed ground. People moved from crowded dark elite-landlord owned city apartments and tiny houses to beautiful, safe, green homes in new suburbs, with modern highways allowing them to do so and still work in the core city. If they wished. How dare they. For the ELITE know what is best for all, often while not taking their own advice.
Thank God for interstates, suburbs, the car culture, and choice. In other words freedom.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 12, 2016, 09:36:48 AM
Same old well-plowed ground. People moved from crowded dark elite-landlord owned city apartments and tiny houses to beautiful, safe, green homes in new suburbs, with modern highways allowing them to do so and still work in the core city. If they wished. How dare they. For the ELITE know what is best for all, often while not taking their own advice.
Thank God for interstates, suburbs, the car culture, and choice. In other words freedom.
And in creating that, they now have so much more infrastructure per square mile to maintain, and so many exasperated social and economic problems in the urban core that need fixing. In other words, taxation.
Can't swing the pendulum too far either way. Neither pre-war density nor post-war sprawl is truly sustainable in North American culture. It needs to be balanced.
Quote from: cbeach40 on May 12, 2016, 10:06:35 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 12, 2016, 09:36:48 AM
Same old well-plowed ground. People moved from crowded dark elite-landlord owned city apartments and tiny houses to beautiful, safe, green homes in new suburbs, with modern highways allowing them to do so and still work in the core city. If they wished. How dare they. For the ELITE know what is best for all, often while not taking their own advice.
Thank God for interstates, suburbs, the car culture, and choice. In other words freedom.
And in creating that, they now have so much more infrastructure per square mile to maintain, and so many exasperated social and economic problems in the urban core that need fixing. In other words, taxation.
Can't swing the pendulum too far either way. Neither pre-war density nor post-war sprawl is truly sustainable in North American culture. It needs to be balanced.
But more than half of Americans live in urban areas now. The only reason that is allowed to happen is because of urban sprawl. If anything we're lacking in rural areas, smaller towns, blue collar jobs...ect. Basically suburbs are basically just part of mega-cities that we call a Metropolitan area now. Everyone wanted the house, white picket fence, 2.3 kids, 2 cars and a dog...for the most part they got it.
I was mostly just interested in the before-and-after aerials. Wanting to see many more, I followed the link, and I was not disappointed (http://iqc.ou.edu/urbanchange).
Quote from: cbeach40 on May 12, 2016, 10:06:35 AM
Can't swing the pendulum too far either way. Neither pre-war density nor post-war sprawl is truly sustainable in North American culture. It needs to be balanced.
And question is where the balance is.
There is NYC area, accountable for 1/14 of US population; NYC+LA+Chicago - 1 out of 6. Is that a swing of pendulum, or natural trend for conglomeration?
My impression is that this trend is going to be more important than anything else. Small cities are just falling in a gap between rural living required for farming, and megapolis trend.
Or, maybe, this is just another side of pendulum swing?
Quote from: empirestate on May 12, 2016, 10:58:06 AM
I was mostly just interested in the before-and-after aerials. Wanting to see many more, I followed the link, and I was not disappointed (http://iqc.ou.edu/urbanchange).
That's pretty solid link. For me it was weird seeing old Tiger's Stadium in a booming neighborhood on Michigan/US 12 back in the heyday of Detroit before the city declined.
Quote from: kalvado on May 12, 2016, 07:39:29 AM
Quote from: Bruce on May 11, 2016, 06:51:30 PM
.Boy, you need to come over to the West Coast. Housing prices are high for any patch of land that is remotely within walking distance of anything. I'm stuck in the far exurbs where we're seeing massive housing price increases for crappy places like my own. It's just not feasible in this day and age.
If people were corralled closer to cities (using things like urban growth boundaries and restricted development, in addition to increased density in already-built areas), people would be able to access government services much easier without cars and things would be a little cheaper in terms of transportation costs. While that won't solve the issues of societies, it goes a long way towards upward mobility (of the socioeconomic kind). Also makes it easier to preserve natural lands that should stay as such, as well as working lands that should be producing food and not be turned into brown lawns.
Is it just me, or you want to have a cake, and eat it too? You want to coral people into the city, and at the same time complain that city housing is too expensive for you?
In a perfect world, increased density within urban centers would allow for housing stock to rise and meet demand, keeping costs lower than they are now.
Housing in the suburbs aught to be more expensive (which it would be without the massive subsidies for services to sustain it), given that it's cost-prohibitive for a business or government to adequately cover them.
i think putting all the blame on interstates is short sited, as with almost every issue in this world, there is nuance.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 12, 2016, 07:10:45 PM
i think putting all the blame on interstates is short sited, as with almost every issue in this world, there is nuance.
Its been rumored I-90 caused the Great Chicago Fire of 1871.
Quote from: Bruce on May 12, 2016, 06:52:46 PM
In a perfect world, increased density within urban centers would allow for housing stock to rise and meet demand, keeping costs lower than they are now.
Housing in the suburbs aught to be more expensive (which it would be without the massive subsidies for services to sustain it), given that it's cost-prohibitive for a business or government to adequately cover them.
And in a real world of supply and demand, you could get an apartment, for example, in Santa Fe NM, for a fraction of your California rent being factor of X larger - and within walking distance from State Capitol. You now, demand must be not very high - unlike where you are.
And don't forget that property values - once again, in our shitty world of supply and demand - tend to go up near city center, since land supply tend to be very tight in those areas, and land production was ceased quite a while ago.
But let me know if you can find a semi-perfect megapolis with low enough housing cost...
Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 12, 2016, 10:33:52 PM
Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.
Care to qualify how it was free? Who is "they" and what do they want "us" to know? I love how "they" always never has a name or a face...I would love to see both for once.
The interstates were just a natural outgrowth of cheap energy so cities expanded on the basis of that easy access to cheap energy for transportation.
Now we have cities that only function with cheap energy for transportation which means society relies on cheap energy. And that in turn motivates policies toward cheap energy regardless of the cost; political, economic and environmental.
These days we find ourselves in the initial stages of trying to replace energy sources while trying to maintain existing growth and living patterns to a great extent and it is not possible to do both simultaneously.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 12, 2016, 10:33:52 PM
Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.
I heard that is exactly why production stopped: free cost of land didn't cover manufacturing expenses...
Quote from: bandit957 on May 12, 2016, 10:33:52 PM
Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.
It was the lizard people from V the Final Battle all along. :-o
I like living in the suburbs or exurbs. I don't mind driving and I enjoy the peace and quiet, and privacy of the suburbs, and not being crammed into a crowded, noisy city.
Quote from: mariethefoxy on May 14, 2016, 11:58:07 AM
I like living in the suburbs or exurbs. I don't mind driving and I enjoy the peace and quiet, and privacy of the suburbs, and not being crammed into a crowded, noisy city.
I used to hate it, but now I don't mind it. I only mind the congestion in my suburb especially, but I'd rather live in a smaller-sized city/town that has a bit of urbanness to it. Probably a place where I could walk a few blocks if I so choose, but I wasn't crammed with thousands of other people. For example, in my state, Somerville is a great example of this kind of town.
I prefer close-in suburbs... far enough from downtown that parking is available and you aren't crammed in with a bunch of people, but close enough that your area isn't just an endless expanse of strip malls and arterials lined with traffic lights with congestion and a long commute.
everyone has the right to live in the type of area (downtown, suburb, exburb, rural area, in between suburb and downtown area) they want to in my opinion, each type of city has its own pros and cons. I like living in the suburbs, but i also like downtown where i live. the only way i'd live downtown is if i also worked there and had no car, parking in almost every downtown is a nightmare, also downtown in most cities is almost always way too expensive to live in, which is why suburbs even exist. but the design of cities and some suburbs is annoying though, endless strip malls, unnecessary signals that are only there to let cars access them and generally bad design when it comes to "complete streets". some suburbs do it right, like Carmel, IN, and others get it wrong like Avon, IN. The interstates were built downtown because they needed to be, now not all of them needed to be built, but you do need to move traffic efficiently from suburbs to downtown. But i do think the routes could have been better. I've never been to KC, so this may be invalid, but did they really need to put a box (of interstates) around their downtown? I think that does cut off downtown from the surroundings and could potentially hurt the area.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 12, 2016, 10:38:08 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on May 12, 2016, 10:33:52 PM
Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.
Care to qualify how it was free? Who is "they" and what do they want "us" to know? I love how "they" always never has a name or a face...I would love to see both for once.
Earlier in human history, if people needed more land, they just went ahead and used it. These days, there is a cabal of corporations that has monopolized most of the land.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 14, 2016, 11:44:29 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 12, 2016, 10:38:08 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on May 12, 2016, 10:33:52 PM
Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.
Care to qualify how it was free? Who is "they" and what do they want "us" to know? I love how "they" always never has a name or a face...I would love to see both for once.
Earlier in human history, if people needed more land, they just went ahead and used it. These days, there is a cabal of corporations that has monopolized most of the land.
Actually most of the land in the U.S. is held by the Federal Government at about 28%. You'd be strapped to find a time in human history where you could say anything was "free." Someone has always claimed dominion over land, people, property or all the like...be that a king, corporation, land baron, government or anything that might fall under a similar description. Countless wars have been fought for control of land and will continue to be in the future...it's all trade and barter at the end of the day or conflict when a resolution can't be reached... Is that who you meant by "they?" Nothing in your response explains what "they" don't want us to know and what is being covered up.
So with that in mind what does your statement have to do with Interstates degrading the urban core of America? Clearly a great majority of Americans wanted the Interstates whether they be the individuals, people in politics or even corporate interests. Whatever you may think of the end result that is hardly the definition of a conspiracy.
Edit: Now I can't get my mind off Shutter Island. :-D Was Teddy really insane or did the doctors and staff just do a really good job at convincing him that he was out of his mind?
There is also this line Tony Soprano told A.J. about getting into real estate because "god ain't making any more of it" that I can't find for the life of me.
I disagree with this article. Freeways boost growth. In Milwaukee for example, two malls were built at the same time. Northridge and Southridge. No freeways are near Northridge and Southridge is near I-894. Northridge closed due to crime problems while the area around Southridge continues to be successful. The north end of Milwaukee doesn't have any freeways and is the worst area of the city. If not having freeways in that area is so great why are the areas farthest away from freeway access the worst parts of the city?
Green Bay and Appleton have beltways around them and no urban freeways. Why are the areas near the freeways exploding in growth while the inner city and downtown areas struggle?
I know I'm only citing Wisconsin, but any time a freeway is built it will fuel growth. If urban freeways weren't built a lot of things that were in downtowns would have just moved out into the suburbs, which would have killed off downtowns.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 14, 2016, 11:44:29 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 12, 2016, 10:38:08 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on May 12, 2016, 10:33:52 PM
Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.
Care to qualify how it was free? Who is "they" and what do they want "us" to know? I love how "they" always never has a name or a face...I would love to see both for once.
Earlier in human history, if people needed more land, they just went ahead and used it. These days, there is a cabal of corporations that has monopolized most of the land.
Maybe back when your profession was "hunter-gatherer." But you might also have to fight for the land you wanted to use.
From the time of the first permanent European settlements in the US and Canada, there have been grants. The king granted a favored subject the rights to small to vast quantities of land in the new world. That grantee would then promote to get settlers there - sometimes free just to get it started. But it was not "take what you want" - it was ask permission of the grantee (sometimes for pay) for the land you wanted.
Many times as the frontier pushed westward the first settlers would "claim" land by getting there first. But usually those claims only lasted until the new area got some form of territorial government. Then the land claims would need to be sorted out.
Quote from: GaryV on May 15, 2016, 06:48:48 AM
Quote from: bandit957 on May 14, 2016, 11:44:29 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 12, 2016, 10:38:08 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on May 12, 2016, 10:33:52 PM
Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.
Care to qualify how it was free? Who is "they" and what do they want "us" to know? I love how "they" always never has a name or a face...I would love to see both for once.
Earlier in human history, if people needed more land, they just went ahead and used it. These days, there is a cabal of corporations that has monopolized most of the land.
Maybe back when your profession was "hunter-gatherer." But you might also have to fight for the land you wanted to use.
From the time of the first permanent European settlements in the US and Canada, there have been grants. The king granted a favored subject the rights to small to vast quantities of land in the new world. That grantee would then promote to get settlers there - sometimes free just to get it started. But it was not "take what you want" - it was ask permission of the grantee (sometimes for pay) for the land you wanted.
Many times as the frontier pushed westward the first settlers would "claim" land by getting there first. But usually those claims only lasted until the new area got some form of territorial government. Then the land claims would need to be sorted out.
Those claims were granted by the federal government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts
Quote from: Brandon on May 15, 2016, 07:26:34 AM
Quote from: GaryV on May 15, 2016, 06:48:48 AM
Quote from: bandit957 on May 14, 2016, 11:44:29 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 12, 2016, 10:38:08 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on May 12, 2016, 10:33:52 PM
Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.
Care to qualify how it was free? Who is "they" and what do they want "us" to know? I love how "they" always never has a name or a face...I would love to see both for once.
Earlier in human history, if people needed more land, they just went ahead and used it. These days, there is a cabal of corporations that has monopolized most of the land.
Maybe back when your profession was "hunter-gatherer." But you might also have to fight for the land you wanted to use.
From the time of the first permanent European settlements in the US and Canada, there have been grants. The king granted a favored subject the rights to small to vast quantities of land in the new world. That grantee would then promote to get settlers there - sometimes free just to get it started. But it was not "take what you want" - it was ask permission of the grantee (sometimes for pay) for the land you wanted.
Many times as the frontier pushed westward the first settlers would "claim" land by getting there first. But usually those claims only lasted until the new area got some form of territorial government. Then the land claims would need to be sorted out.
Those claims were granted by the federal government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts
Usually there was stipulations that came along with the Homestead Act like working it for several years for farming or cattle grazing before you could receive a titled deed. So in that sense you still had to earn the land and had to have a skill to maintain it, that's a far cry from someone giving you something for nothing. Not to mention those lands were largely already occupied by Native Americans that the Federal Government at the time wanted to push onto reservations or annex into society by force.
Quote from: peterj920 on May 15, 2016, 05:06:32 AM
I disagree with this article. Freeways boost growth. In Milwaukee for example, two malls were built at the same time. Northridge and Southridge. No freeways are near Northridge and Southridge is near I-894. Northridge closed due to crime problems while the area around Southridge continues to be successful. The north end of Milwaukee doesn't have any freeways and is the worst area of the city. If not having freeways in that area is so great why are the areas farthest away from freeway access the worst parts of the city?
Green Bay and Appleton have beltways around them and no urban freeways. Why are the areas near the freeways exploding in growth while the inner city and downtown areas struggle?
I know I'm only citing Wisconsin, but any time a freeway is built it will fuel growth. If urban freeways weren't built a lot of things that were in downtowns would have just moved out into the suburbs, which would have killed off downtowns.
Then why did crime get a lot worse around here when freeways were built?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 15, 2016, 10:09:44 AM
Usually there was stipulations that came along with the Homestead Act like working it for several years for farming or cattle grazing before you could receive a titled deed. So in that sense you still had to earn the land and had to have a skill to maintain it, that's a far cry from someone giving you something for nothing. Not to mention those lands were largely already occupied by Native Americans that the Federal Government at the time wanted to push onto reservations or annex into society by force.
What they need to do is pass a new version of the Homestead Act that lets people use land now owned by corporations.
you can also argue that big box retailers killed downtowns, especially small town downtowns.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 15, 2016, 01:26:06 PM
Quote from: peterj920 on May 15, 2016, 05:06:32 AM
I disagree with this article. Freeways boost growth. In Milwaukee for example, two malls were built at the same time. Northridge and Southridge. No freeways are near Northridge and Southridge is near I-894. Northridge closed due to crime problems while the area around Southridge continues to be successful. The north end of Milwaukee doesn't have any freeways and is the worst area of the city. If not having freeways in that area is so great why are the areas farthest away from freeway access the worst parts of the city?
Green Bay and Appleton have beltways around them and no urban freeways. Why are the areas near the freeways exploding in growth while the inner city and downtown areas struggle?
I know I'm only citing Wisconsin, but any time a freeway is built it will fuel growth. If urban freeways weren't built a lot of things that were in downtowns would have just moved out into the suburbs, which would have killed off downtowns.
Then why did crime get a lot worse around here when freeways were built?
While I can't speak for crime statistics in Green Bay nationwide crime has largely been on the decline since the Interstate building era ended.. I added some actually Uniform Crime Reports from the FBI website that shows a huge decline in crime since the 1980s:
In 2014 here is what the Uniform Crime Report Shows for Violent and Property Crime:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/violent-crime
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/property-crime
Now 2004:
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/property_crime/index.html
And 1995 the last year that easily searchable on the FBI website:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1995/95sec2.pdf
Now that isn't to say that some cities aren't far worse off than when they were before the Interstates were built, my home town of Detroit is an example of this. Basically Detroit had three major issues that led to it's decline more than anything else; racial inequity, corrupt city government and having an industry completely based in the Automotive sector. All the Interstate system facilitated in Detroit was urban sprawl and abandonment of former neighborhoods. The domestic automakers have lost about half of their market-share since the late 1960s which basically gutted all the entry level jobs in the city. So basically you got a city that has no way to employ it's populace much less draw tax-payer money at 700,000 people today as opposed to the 1,800,000 million that lived in the city in the 1950s. There was a ton of social injustices in cities like Detroit prior to the Civil Rights era which led to things like the riots of 1967 and what they call "White Flight" to the suburbs. Then to throw the cherry on top of everything you had majors and city officials who stole millions of what was left that could have been used to reinvest into the crumbling infrastructure. Basically before I get sounding too uber political I'm trying to say that it was a lot more than just one factor that led to the decline of U.S. cities in the Rust Belt...those are just a few examples from a city I grew up in. You'll hear similar stories out of Buffalo, Cleveland, Pittsburg and many more.
Now I've often heard the theory that things were better in the 1970s and 1980s in regards to crime, statistically that just simply isn't true. Back in those days my parents did stupid things like leave us kids at home alone or even left the doors unlocked when they were home. People would wander blindly into really bad neighborhoods and it wasn't too uncommon at least in Detroit to hear a whisper of some gang related shootings in local schools. Basically nobody talked about it....crime wasn't a pleasant topic to talk about it and that's just how society was.
Switch to today and people feel a lot less safe from crime even though statically they are less likely to be victim's of it. What has changed in modern times is hyper awareness created by media outlets, social media and the internet. Back in the 80s people would turn away from a crime...today they would likely bust out a cell phone to video or get directly involved somehow. Basically people are a lot more aware that bad things can happen to them in today's world and are a lot more afraid of it happening. Considering the drop in the raw number violent crime with the population boom since the 1980s bears this out even more.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 15, 2016, 01:27:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 15, 2016, 10:09:44 AM
Usually there was stipulations that came along with the Homestead Act like working it for several years for farming or cattle grazing before you could receive a titled deed. So in that sense you still had to earn the land and had to have a skill to maintain it, that's a far cry from someone giving you something for nothing. Not to mention those lands were largely already occupied by Native Americans that the Federal Government at the time wanted to push onto reservations or annex into society by force.
What they need to do is pass a new version of the Homestead Act that lets people use land now owned by corporations.
Actually I would mind seeing something like this on unused BLM land but you would have problems that would be encountered that didn't exist during the original act. Most of the good workable land close to a serviceable source of water is already being used. The problem we're having out west is that there just isn't enough water to continue to support expanding development. That's why all those mining towns in Nevada dwindled and died in Nevada after the Comstock Lode era...because there was no reason for them to exist once the one trick pony disappeared with the mine. On the flip side that's why many of the Californian Gold Rush towns survived and boomed because they offered much more to various industries than an empty Great Basin Desert with no water.
Basically a lot of Federal Land is used appropriately among the National Park Service, Forest Service, BLM maintained park lands and even military installations like the Nevada Test Site. There would be just meager scraps to pick off of what is left, there won't be another big land boom.
Besides the mega-corporations you keep mentioning don't hold as much sway as the ones of yesteryear did. Read up on the history of trust-busting and monopolies like U.S. Steel or Standard Oil. You'll get a true feel for how much of a death grip they really had over their industries, labor and basically unfair pricing. There isn't a single company existing in the U.S. today that has the control of their market places like the monopolies did. GM probably would have been the closest to a modern example in the late 1960s with 65% of the domestic market share but they still had big competition from Ford and Chrysler.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 15, 2016, 02:24:06 PM
you can also argue that big box retailers killed downtowns, especially small town downtowns.
Of course they did and the reasons were obvious. Mom & Pop shops couldn't compete with the prices, standards and selection that major retails all could. Basically you see that progression from Sears and Roebuck, to Kmart, to Walmart and probably to Target in the last decade. Basically when a big box wanted to put a 100,000 square foot store in your town you couldn't really say no since they would likely bring it to somewhere else nearby and draw all the money out of your town. Usually big boxes like to be near the newer highways and easier access roads which in turn lead to urban sprawl. Basically even in towns 5,000 to 50,000 you see a largely abandoned downtown core while the newer retail strip is generally booming.
Quote from: Brandon on May 15, 2016, 07:26:34 AM
Quote from: GaryV on May 15, 2016, 06:48:48 AM
Quote from: bandit957 on May 14, 2016, 11:44:29 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 12, 2016, 10:38:08 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on May 12, 2016, 10:33:52 PM
Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.
Care to qualify how it was free? Who is "they" and what do they want "us" to know? I love how "they" always never has a name or a face...I would love to see both for once.
Earlier in human history, if people needed more land, they just went ahead and used it. These days, there is a cabal of corporations that has monopolized most of the land.
Maybe back when your profession was "hunter-gatherer." But you might also have to fight for the land you wanted to use.
From the time of the first permanent European settlements in the US and Canada, there have been grants. The king granted a favored subject the rights to small to vast quantities of land in the new world. That grantee would then promote to get settlers there - sometimes free just to get it started. But it was not "take what you want" - it was ask permission of the grantee (sometimes for pay) for the land you wanted.
Many times as the frontier pushed westward the first settlers would "claim" land by getting there first. But usually those claims only lasted until the new area got some form of territorial government. Then the land claims would need to be sorted out.
Those claims were granted by the federal government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts
I was thinking of settlers long before the Homestead Acts. For example, the first people to move west of the Appalachians, the "mountain men", etc. They took possession of land nobody had yet wanted (natives excepted) and it became "theirs", at least until someone with a valid government claim came forward.
Quote from: GaryV on May 15, 2016, 02:50:36 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 15, 2016, 07:26:34 AM
Quote from: GaryV on May 15, 2016, 06:48:48 AM
Quote from: bandit957 on May 14, 2016, 11:44:29 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 12, 2016, 10:38:08 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on May 12, 2016, 10:33:52 PM
Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.
Care to qualify how it was free? Who is "they" and what do they want "us" to know? I love how "they" always never has a name or a face...I would love to see both for once.
Earlier in human history, if people needed more land, they just went ahead and used it. These days, there is a cabal of corporations that has monopolized most of the land.
Maybe back when your profession was "hunter-gatherer." But you might also have to fight for the land you wanted to use.
From the time of the first permanent European settlements in the US and Canada, there have been grants. The king granted a favored subject the rights to small to vast quantities of land in the new world. That grantee would then promote to get settlers there - sometimes free just to get it started. But it was not "take what you want" - it was ask permission of the grantee (sometimes for pay) for the land you wanted.
Many times as the frontier pushed westward the first settlers would "claim" land by getting there first. But usually those claims only lasted until the new area got some form of territorial government. Then the land claims would need to be sorted out.
Those claims were granted by the federal government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts
I was thinking of settlers long before the Homestead Acts. For example, the first people to move west of the Appalachians, the "mountain men", etc. They took possession of land nobody had yet wanted (natives excepted) and it became "theirs", at least until someone with a valid government claim came forward.
But acquiring that land wasn't exactly an easy process. Back then you had to know how to work the land and largely survive on your own with no infrastructure around you. You were on your own for defending your property and life back in those days as well. So if you went and made some local tribe angry because you intruded you might have to face their wrath on your own. Another decent comparison would be the mining booms in California and Nevada. Basically you had to stake a claim, work it on your own and survive a lawless land on your own. Free in a sense?...yeah sure, but definitely nowhere in the neighborhood of easy.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 15, 2016, 01:27:41 PM
What they need to do is pass a new version of the Homestead Act that lets people use land now owned by government.
FIFY.
How about we let the government keep its land and use it in a way that the public can audit, rather than give it away to corporations (who make up the lion's share of acquisitions) who can do as they please with little-to-no oversight?
There's a lot about new urbanism that pisses me off as an engineer.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 16, 2016, 10:49:55 AM
There's a lot about new urbanism that pisses me off as an engineer.
Can you give a bit more details? I mean, I can see a few drawbacks - like job availability and mobility of labor, but would be interesting to have engineering perspective as well.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 12, 2016, 10:33:52 PM
Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.
Yeah labor used to be free, too. Damn progressives ruining everything...
Quote from: kalvado on May 16, 2016, 10:59:11 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 16, 2016, 10:49:55 AM
There's a lot about new urbanism that pisses me off as an engineer.
Can you give a bit more details? I mean, I can see a few drawbacks - like job availability and mobility of labor, but would be interesting to have engineering perspective as well.
The things that annoy me about new urbanism is this idea that all problems that affected the city can be blamed on road design and having interstates in the downtown area of cities. As we have said before, blaming this on roads and their design is short sited and not correct. Their solution really annoys me, which usually "tear down the interstate and replace it with a boulevard" Doing this is asinine. Basically this would create a shitty congested mess with signals, more pollution, and make things more dangerous (pedestrian/cyclist conflicts with cars). I don't think there's anything wrong with the design of our roads, but requirements should be changed. I think every road in a city should be required to have a sidewalk or multi-use path on at least one side of the road (obviously not on divided highways and interstates). New urbanists keep talking about mass transit being what we need, but the problem is it never is profitable and often under utilized for most cities in America. Some of the things they call for I agree with, like: mixed use development, bringing back the street grid, 20 min communities, and beautification projects. Road diets make sense in a lot of areas too. New urbanists hate the fact that America is car centric, I don't see this as a problem, what I advocate is to multiple choices for transportation in a city. If you want to walk, bike, drive, take the bus/subway, you have the right to do so and every major city should offer these choices.
Quote from: MrDisco99 on May 16, 2016, 05:35:27 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on May 12, 2016, 10:33:52 PM
Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.
Yeah labor used to be free, too. Damn progressives ruining everything...
+1
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 16, 2016, 08:59:41 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 16, 2016, 10:59:11 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 16, 2016, 10:49:55 AM
There's a lot about new urbanism that pisses me off as an engineer.
Can you give a bit more details? I mean, I can see a few drawbacks - like job availability and mobility of labor, but would be interesting to have engineering perspective as well.
The things that annoy me about new urbanism is this idea that all problems that affected the city can be blamed on road design and having interstates in the downtown area of cities. As we have said before, blaming this on roads and their design is short sited and not correct. Their solution really annoys me, which usually "tear down the interstate and replace it with a boulevard" Doing this is asinine. Basically this would create a shitty congested mess with signals, more pollution, and make things more dangerous (pedestrian/cyclist conflicts with cars). I don't think there's anything wrong with the design of our roads, but requirements should be changed. I think every road in a city should be required to have a sidewalk or multi-use path on at least one side of the road (obviously not on divided highways and interstates). New urbanists keep talking about mass transit being what we need, but the problem is it never is profitable and often under utilized for most cities in America. Some of the things they call for I agree with, like: mixed use development, bringing back the street grid, 20 min communities, and beautification projects. Road diets make sense in a lot of areas too.
Some very poorly designed roads (and railroads, for that matter) have divided up cities and one side of the obstruction or the other became the 'bad' area that anyone with the means escaped from. There's a reason the "wrong side of the tracks" is a still valid analogy. Rivers used to do this on their own (East St. Louis to St. Louis, for example), but the man-made ones especially.
Throw in the fact that poorer neighborhood NIMBYism failed where the wealthy NIMBYism succeeded in stopping road projects they didn't want. It gave wealthier neighborhoods even more drawing power, while the poor neighborhoods sliced and diced with large Earthen dams separating the land or sunken highways with only a few bridges spaced out suddenly left certain areas 'stuck' especially with the poorer among us more dependent on foot traffic and mass transit to get around their neighborhoods and towns compared to the wealthier that only cared that a faster moving road could get you to and fro with ease, no matter how far out of downtown they lived.
As for interstates downtown... why does through traffic need to traverse a downtown urban center? Why does I-279 & I-376 need to squeeze right around Point Park in Pittsburgh? Or I-90, I-77, and OH-2 need to wrap around downtown Cleveland? None, really. Bypasses aren't efficient, generally, unless the through route is so abhorrent that taking the extra miles is worth it.
If I-70 road 10 miles south of it's current route from Terre-Haute to Wheeling, WV.... would it be beneficial to through traffic? And beneficial to the cities to avoid the excess people with no intention of stopping? And then simply have a spur on either side heading to downtown to dump you into the street grid around the urban core? With a full circle bypass of the city to the north, east, and west and the through route to the south with various spurs coming in from the ring road toward downtown but ending?
Routing through traffic through the urban core of a city would be akin to running high power transmission lines down a city street. It would be idiotic. Same goes for traffic and people.
Quote from: Sykotyk on May 16, 2016, 09:34:14 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 16, 2016, 08:59:41 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 16, 2016, 10:59:11 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 16, 2016, 10:49:55 AM
There's a lot about new urbanism that pisses me off as an engineer.
Can you give a bit more details? I mean, I can see a few drawbacks - like job availability and mobility of labor, but would be interesting to have engineering perspective as well.
The things that annoy me about new urbanism is this idea that all problems that affected the city can be blamed on road design and having interstates in the downtown area of cities. As we have said before, blaming this on roads and their design is short sited and not correct. Their solution really annoys me, which usually "tear down the interstate and replace it with a boulevard" Doing this is asinine. Basically this would create a shitty congested mess with signals, more pollution, and make things more dangerous (pedestrian/cyclist conflicts with cars). I don't think there's anything wrong with the design of our roads, but requirements should be changed. I think every road in a city should be required to have a sidewalk or multi-use path on at least one side of the road (obviously not on divided highways and interstates). New urbanists keep talking about mass transit being what we need, but the problem is it never is profitable and often under utilized for most cities in America. Some of the things they call for I agree with, like: mixed use development, bringing back the street grid, 20 min communities, and beautification projects. Road diets make sense in a lot of areas too.
Some very poorly designed roads (and railroads, for that matter) have divided up cities and one side of the obstruction or the other became the 'bad' area that anyone with the means escaped from. There's a reason the "wrong side of the tracks" is a still valid analogy. Rivers used to do this on their own (East St. Louis to St. Louis, for example), but the man-made ones especially.
Throw in the fact that poorer neighborhood NIMBYism failed where the wealthy NIMBYism succeeded in stopping road projects they didn't want. It gave wealthier neighborhoods even more drawing power, while the poor neighborhoods sliced and diced with large Earthen dams separating the land or sunken highways with only a few bridges spaced out suddenly left certain areas 'stuck' especially with the poorer among us more dependent on foot traffic and mass transit to get around their neighborhoods and towns compared to the wealthier that only cared that a faster moving road could get you to and fro with ease, no matter how far out of downtown they lived.
As for interstates downtown... why does through traffic need to traverse a downtown urban center? Why does I-279 & I-376 need to squeeze right around Point Park in Pittsburgh? Or I-90, I-77, and OH-2 need to wrap around downtown Cleveland? None, really. Bypasses aren't efficient, generally, unless the through route is so abhorrent that taking the extra miles is worth it.
If I-70 road 10 miles south of it's current route from Terre-Haute to Wheeling, WV.... would it be beneficial to through traffic? And beneficial to the cities to avoid the excess people with no intention of stopping? And then simply have a spur on either side heading to downtown to dump you into the street grid around the urban core? With a full circle bypass of the city to the north, east, and west and the through route to the south with various spurs coming in from the ring road toward downtown but ending?
Routing through traffic through the urban core of a city would be akin to running high power transmission lines down a city street. It would be idiotic. Same goes for traffic and people.
I disagree, the highways going downtown aren't for through traffic it's for local traffic, look at cities with beltways, the beltway is the bypass for through traffic, the interstates going in are for fast efficient travel to downtown. Highways to downtown are necessary, but not all, look at i-375 in Detroit, or i-579 in Pittsburgh, i-10 in NO is useless, (route it onto 610) those are good examples of highways not being needed. And as I said before, why does KC need all of those highways around their downtown? What I'm saying in a nutshell is a lot of these highways to downtown are necessary, but you can argue, and I'd agree in a lot of cases that it's a bit overboard. Building them depressed is also better than elevated, 93 in Boston is a good example of an awful elevated freeway.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 16, 2016, 09:42:46 PM
Quote from: Sykotyk on May 16, 2016, 09:34:14 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 16, 2016, 08:59:41 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 16, 2016, 10:59:11 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 16, 2016, 10:49:55 AM
There's a lot about new urbanism that pisses me off as an engineer.
Can you give a bit more details? I mean, I can see a few drawbacks - like job availability and mobility of labor, but would be interesting to have engineering perspective as well.
The things that annoy me about new urbanism is this idea that all problems that affected the city can be blamed on road design and having interstates in the downtown area of cities. As we have said before, blaming this on roads and their design is short sited and not correct. Their solution really annoys me, which usually "tear down the interstate and replace it with a boulevard" Doing this is asinine. Basically this would create a shitty congested mess with signals, more pollution, and make things more dangerous (pedestrian/cyclist conflicts with cars). I don't think there's anything wrong with the design of our roads, but requirements should be changed. I think every road in a city should be required to have a sidewalk or multi-use path on at least one side of the road (obviously not on divided highways and interstates). New urbanists keep talking about mass transit being what we need, but the problem is it never is profitable and often under utilized for most cities in America. Some of the things they call for I agree with, like: mixed use development, bringing back the street grid, 20 min communities, and beautification projects. Road diets make sense in a lot of areas too.
Some very poorly designed roads (and railroads, for that matter) have divided up cities and one side of the obstruction or the other became the 'bad' area that anyone with the means escaped from. There's a reason the "wrong side of the tracks" is a still valid analogy. Rivers used to do this on their own (East St. Louis to St. Louis, for example), but the man-made ones especially.
Throw in the fact that poorer neighborhood NIMBYism failed where the wealthy NIMBYism succeeded in stopping road projects they didn't want. It gave wealthier neighborhoods even more drawing power, while the poor neighborhoods sliced and diced with large Earthen dams separating the land or sunken highways with only a few bridges spaced out suddenly left certain areas 'stuck' especially with the poorer among us more dependent on foot traffic and mass transit to get around their neighborhoods and towns compared to the wealthier that only cared that a faster moving road could get you to and fro with ease, no matter how far out of downtown they lived.
As for interstates downtown... why does through traffic need to traverse a downtown urban center? Why does I-279 & I-376 need to squeeze right around Point Park in Pittsburgh? Or I-90, I-77, and OH-2 need to wrap around downtown Cleveland? None, really. Bypasses aren't efficient, generally, unless the through route is so abhorrent that taking the extra miles is worth it.
If I-70 road 10 miles south of it's current route from Terre-Haute to Wheeling, WV.... would it be beneficial to through traffic? And beneficial to the cities to avoid the excess people with no intention of stopping? And then simply have a spur on either side heading to downtown to dump you into the street grid around the urban core? With a full circle bypass of the city to the north, east, and west and the through route to the south with various spurs coming in from the ring road toward downtown but ending?
Routing through traffic through the urban core of a city would be akin to running high power transmission lines down a city street. It would be idiotic. Same goes for traffic and people.
I disagree, the highways going downtown aren't for through traffic it's for local traffic, look at cities with beltways, the beltway is the bypass for through traffic, the interstates going in are for fast efficient travel to downtown. Highways to downtown are necessary, but not all, look at i-375 in Detroit, or i-579 in Pittsburgh, i-10 in NO is useless, (route it onto 610) those are good examples of highways not being needed. And as I said before, why does KC need all of those highways around their downtown? What I'm saying in a nutshell is a lot of these highways to downtown are necessary, but you can argue, and I'd agree in a lot of cases that it's a bit overboard. Building them depressed is also better than elevated, 93 in Boston is a good example of an awful elevated freeway.
I do agree with your idea of separating communities is an issue. And this has been solved in interesting ways, park caps over interstates, depressing the highway, tunneling it, and providing better pedestrian access (ped bridges) all help.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 16, 2016, 09:42:46 PM
Quote from: Sykotyk on May 16, 2016, 09:34:14 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 16, 2016, 08:59:41 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 16, 2016, 10:59:11 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 16, 2016, 10:49:55 AM
There's a lot about new urbanism that pisses me off as an engineer.
Can you give a bit more details? I mean, I can see a few drawbacks - like job availability and mobility of labor, but would be interesting to have engineering perspective as well.
The things that annoy me about new urbanism is this idea that all problems that affected the city can be blamed on road design and having interstates in the downtown area of cities. As we have said before, blaming this on roads and their design is short sited and not correct. Their solution really annoys me, which usually "tear down the interstate and replace it with a boulevard" Doing this is asinine. Basically this would create a shitty congested mess with signals, more pollution, and make things more dangerous (pedestrian/cyclist conflicts with cars). I don't think there's anything wrong with the design of our roads, but requirements should be changed. I think every road in a city should be required to have a sidewalk or multi-use path on at least one side of the road (obviously not on divided highways and interstates). New urbanists keep talking about mass transit being what we need, but the problem is it never is profitable and often under utilized for most cities in America. Some of the things they call for I agree with, like: mixed use development, bringing back the street grid, 20 min communities, and beautification projects. Road diets make sense in a lot of areas too.
Some very poorly designed roads (and railroads, for that matter) have divided up cities and one side of the obstruction or the other became the 'bad' area that anyone with the means escaped from. There's a reason the "wrong side of the tracks" is a still valid analogy. Rivers used to do this on their own (East St. Louis to St. Louis, for example), but the man-made ones especially.
Throw in the fact that poorer neighborhood NIMBYism failed where the wealthy NIMBYism succeeded in stopping road projects they didn't want. It gave wealthier neighborhoods even more drawing power, while the poor neighborhoods sliced and diced with large Earthen dams separating the land or sunken highways with only a few bridges spaced out suddenly left certain areas 'stuck' especially with the poorer among us more dependent on foot traffic and mass transit to get around their neighborhoods and towns compared to the wealthier that only cared that a faster moving road could get you to and fro with ease, no matter how far out of downtown they lived.
As for interstates downtown... why does through traffic need to traverse a downtown urban center? Why does I-279 & I-376 need to squeeze right around Point Park in Pittsburgh? Or I-90, I-77, and OH-2 need to wrap around downtown Cleveland? None, really. Bypasses aren't efficient, generally, unless the through route is so abhorrent that taking the extra miles is worth it.
If I-70 road 10 miles south of it's current route from Terre-Haute to Wheeling, WV.... would it be beneficial to through traffic? And beneficial to the cities to avoid the excess people with no intention of stopping? And then simply have a spur on either side heading to downtown to dump you into the street grid around the urban core? With a full circle bypass of the city to the north, east, and west and the through route to the south with various spurs coming in from the ring road toward downtown but ending?
Routing through traffic through the urban core of a city would be akin to running high power transmission lines down a city street. It would be idiotic. Same goes for traffic and people.
I disagree, the highways going downtown aren't for through traffic it's for local traffic, look at cities with beltways, the beltway is the bypass for through traffic, the interstates going in are for fast efficient travel to downtown. Highways to downtown are necessary, but not all, look at i-375 in Detroit, or i-579 in Pittsburgh, i-10 in NO is useless, (route it onto 610) those are good examples of highways not being needed. And as I said before, why does KC need all of those highways around their downtown? What I'm saying in a nutshell is a lot of these highways to downtown are necessary, but you can argue, and I'd agree in a lot of cases that it's a bit overboard. Building them depressed is also better than elevated, 93 in Boston is a good example of an awful elevated freeway.
Where did I say highways going downtown was the problem? The problem was through traffic going through downtown. Spurs going into town and dumping you into the urban center would be utilized by those going to the urban center.
Those going 'through' the metro area would utility the through route. And don't tell me the labeled bypass is used by interstate travelers in the volume you think. Unfortunately, dumb people who are taking I-76 to I-70 from Philadelphia to Kansas City aren't going to get off the road they think will take them to Kansas City. I knew a guy who drove that route regularly. And for over two years that I knew him, never realized that he drove through downtown St. Louis every trip. Why? Because he was taking I-70 to Kansas City. So, why get off it? He assumed the bypass would be extra miles taking extra time (he never hit St. Louis during rush hour to worry about routing himself around it). It wasn't until I pointed it out to him (I was on the phone with him when he was going across the bridge by the Gateway Arch that I realized he was still on I-70). He was amazed how the through route was a different route than I-70, which he felt should have been by default the shortest route.
So, the amount of people who aren't map enthusiasts or regular drivers to assume they feel comfortable getting off the road they want to be on to go extra miles to 'avoid' something is foreign to them. Even with the advent of GPS, if they know their destination is on one route, they're going to stay on that route until they get there. Regardless.
That's why throughroutes should take the shortest and least congested route to segregate the through and local traffic onto different roads referenced by different designations.
Quote from: Sykotyk on May 16, 2016, 09:34:14 PM
Some very poorly designed roads (and railroads, for that matter) have divided up cities and one side of the obstruction or the other became the 'bad' area that anyone with the means escaped from. There's a reason the "wrong side of the tracks" is a still valid analogy. Rivers used to do this on their own (East St. Louis to
St. Louis, for example), but the man-made ones especially.
If people are free to move around, a small advantage of one area (uphill/downhill, closer/further from river etc) would eventually develop into significant gap. Dividers may make this process more apparent, but it will exist no matter what.
Quote
As for interstates downtown... why does through traffic need to traverse a downtown urban center? Why does I-279 & I-376 need to squeeze right around Point Park in Pittsburgh? Or I-90, I-77, and OH-2 need to wrap around downtown Cleveland? None, really. Bypasses aren't efficient, generally, unless the through route is so abhorrent that taking the extra miles is worth it.
Historically, settlements often grew up around roads and their intersections. So established traffic corridors would often head to city center, because city was built near the road. To make things worse, any bypass has significant chance of getting absorbed by the growing city. Or city would grow around that bypass, if you will.
And pretty often you cannot select random line on a map and convert it into a road. Terrain - like hills around river valleys, not to mention imminent domain can of worms for any new construction - limit your options. That old corridor likely uses most convenient path and leads to the city - well, to the old city center which grew around that corridor
Quote from: SP Cook on May 12, 2016, 09:36:48 AM
Same old well-plowed ground. People moved from crowded dark elite-landlord owned city apartments and tiny houses to beautiful, safe, green homes in new suburbs, with modern highways allowing them to do so and still work in the core city. If they wished. How dare they. For the ELITE know what is best for all, often while not taking their own advice.
Thank God for interstates, suburbs, the car culture, and choice. In other words freedom.
I don't know about you, but I'm an American. No limits ever applied to me.
Quote from: bandit957 on May 12, 2016, 10:33:52 PM
Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.
What?
Are you talking about the Homestead Act? I guess land is free if it was stolen from someone else...
Or before money was invented?
Quote from: kkt on May 17, 2016, 02:23:16 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on May 12, 2016, 10:33:52 PM
Land used to be free - a fact that is largely covered up because they don't want us to know.
What?
Are you talking about the Homestead Act? I guess land is free if it was stolen from someone else...
Or before money was invented?
We had a whole rant about the Homestead act a couple posts later and the five year improvement stipulation. Given there was a similar statement about 80s cartoons being the ruination of the animated world I think it's just one of those things people say when they have disdain for something but don't articulate why.
Quote from: kalvado on May 17, 2016, 08:49:46 AM
Quote from: Sykotyk on May 16, 2016, 09:34:14 PM
Some very poorly designed roads (and railroads, for that matter) have divided up cities and one side of the obstruction or the other became the 'bad' area that anyone with the means escaped from. There's a reason the "wrong side of the tracks" is a still valid analogy. Rivers used to do this on their own (East St. Louis to
St. Louis, for example), but the man-made ones especially.
If people are free to move around, a small advantage of one area (uphill/downhill, closer/further from river etc) would eventually develop into significant gap. Dividers may make this process more apparent, but it will exist no matter what.
It's easy to think that 'moving' is free. Sure, we have the freedom to live where we want. But, it's not without cost. Which is the problem for poorer people wanting a better life. Cheap apartment complexes don't exist in nicer neighborhoods Renting? Better have good credit. Or, 'be white' as was a well known discriminatory practice.
Secondly, actually taking your worldly possessions and moving them from one town to another really needs a vehicle. If you don't already have one, that's another expense. Having rent overlap is another. Turning on utilities may require deposits if not the same company.
Poor people don't move because they want to, they move because they have to. Because the overriding cost is high compared to their income.
Quote
Quote
As for interstates downtown... why does through traffic need to traverse a downtown urban center? Why does I-279 & I-376 need to squeeze right around Point Park in Pittsburgh? Or I-90, I-77, and OH-2 need to wrap around downtown Cleveland? None, really. Bypasses aren't efficient, generally, unless the through route is so abhorrent that taking the extra miles is worth it.
Historically, settlements often grew up around roads and their intersections. So established traffic corridors would often head to city center, because city was built near the road. To make things worse, any bypass has significant chance of getting absorbed by the growing city. Or city would grow around that bypass, if you will.
Actually, roads went town to town. No matter how 'out of alignment' that route would be. State Routes and U.S. routes were an attempt to piece those hodge podge of town-to-town roads together into some type of a network. Jetmore KS didn't exist because US283 and KS 156 meet there. US283 and KS 156 meet there because Jetmore is there. (It being the county seat and the biggest governing area).
As for modern roads with bypasses around towns, that's the curse of sprawl. Without limited access, the business want to be where the people can see them. And if it's driving by town at 50mph, then that's where their tall, well-lit signs and manicured storefronts will be. The townsfolk can just drive out from the center of town.
Quote
And pretty often you cannot select random line on a map and convert it into a road. Terrain - like hills around river valleys, not to mention imminent domain can of worms for any new construction - limit your options. That old corridor likely uses most convenient path and leads to the city - well, to the old city center which grew around that corridor
In some respects, yes. But, usually at a time when everyone lived in the city already did the elevated railroads come in that split up areas. Highways, especially by the time the interstates were conceived, were placed into urban areas already experiencing sprawl.
Quote from: Sykotyk on May 17, 2016, 08:59:41 PM
It's easy to think that 'moving' is free. Sure, we have the freedom to live where we want. But, it's not without cost. Which is the problem for poorer people wanting a better life. Cheap apartment complexes don't exist in nicer neighborhoods Renting? Better have good credit. Or, 'be white' as was a well known discriminatory practice.
Secondly, actually taking your worldly possessions and moving them from one town to another really needs a vehicle. If you don't already have one, that's another expense. Having rent overlap is another. Turning on utilities may require deposits if not the same company.
Poor people don't move because they want to, they move because they have to. Because the overriding cost is high compared to their income.
Result is the same - good neighborhood grows rich, poor grows the other way. What I am saying is that same process would happen without highways.
Quote
Actually, roads went town to town.
Probably chicken and egg. Yet, historic road goes to old town center in either case.
However, an interesting point: flatter areas have more choice. I wouldn't be surprised if Jetmore is there because there was a trading post or tavern over there. Could go 10 miles either way. Here in NY we're more limited with valleys, rivers and mountains. If you look at the topographic map, you can pretty much tell where bigger cities and major transportation corridors would land.
Quote from: Bruce on May 12, 2016, 06:52:46 PM
In a perfect world, increased density within urban centers would allow for housing stock to rise and meet demand, keeping costs lower than they are now.
Housing in the suburbs aught to be more expensive (which it would be without the massive subsidies for services to sustain it), given that it's cost-prohibitive for a business or government to adequately cover them.
The trouble is figuring out how to limit horizontal growth without also limiting vertical growth. In theory you'd think it should be easy, in reality once there is a mindset of having strict land use regulations, they tend to get used for status quo preservation across the board. So you end up with zoning rules that prevent increased density in urban areas as well as outward growth, and everyone's prices go up.
Also, I wouldn't be so quick to deride suburbs although it is best to 1) keep them medium density rather than low density, 2) keep the street networks continuous, enough with the gratuitous cul-de-sacs already.
The reason why is that, if you can enter the market, owning your own home is a lot better for your long term finances than renting is. But, owning your own home means there needs to be single family homes to buy. It is certainly possible to own a condo or apartment, but this is more administratively difficult to manage. In practice, ownership rates are lower in higher density areas, so lower density areas are needed to give people a place to own.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 16, 2016, 08:59:41 PM
The things that annoy me about new urbanism is this idea that all problems that affected the city can be blamed on road design and having interstates in the downtown area of cities. As we have said before, blaming this on roads and their design is short sited and not correct.
First of all, New Urbanism doesn't blame all of the city's problem on roads. It also considers separation of uses to be a large part of the problem.
QuoteTheir solution really annoys me, which usually "tear down the interstate and replace it with a boulevard" Doing this is asinine. Basically this would create a shitty congested mess with signals, more pollution, and make things more dangerous (pedestrian/cyclist conflicts with cars).
One of the problems with urban freeways of questionable value is that they take up space that could be put to more productive use. Often it's not just the space for the freeway mainline that's the problem; rather, the space required for interchanges is a large problem. If a surface-level boulevard with at-grade intersections can serve the same traffic needs as an underutilized freeway, then it frees space that can be used for tax-generating development or parkland by eliminating the need to use land for interchange ramps.
Quote
I don't think there's anything wrong with the design of our roads, but requirements should be changed. I think every road in a city should be required to have a sidewalk or multi-use path on at least one side of the road (obviously not on divided highways and interstates).
Decent walkability requires much more than just putting sidewalks along roads. Intersections still pose tremendous challenges. For one, intersections with wide turning radii hurt walkability because they allow motorists to make turns at relatively high speeds rather than slowing down to speeds that are safer for when pedestrian and car traffic mix. Lane widths are also a problem, as wider lanes allow motorists to feel more comfortable driving faster, which makes the road less safe for pedestrians to cross at unprotected crossings (crosswalks not controlled by a signal or a stop sign).
Now, I agree that full segregation of pedestrian and bicycle traffic from motor vehicle traffic would have an obvious safety benefit. But the CIAM ideal is too expensive to realize in today's economic climate, it's unrealistic in today's political climate (for better or worse), and the question of whether it would truly function well to serve urban vitality has long been a matter of debate.
Quote
New urbanists keep talking about mass transit being what we need, but the problem is it never is profitable and often under utilized for most cities in America. Some of the things they call for I agree with, like: mixed use development, bringing back the street grid, 20 min communities, and beautification projects. Road diets make sense in a lot of areas too. New urbanists hate the fact that America is car centric, I don't see this as a problem, what I advocate is to multiple choices for transportation in a city. If you want to walk, bike, drive, take the bus/subway, you have the right to do so and every major city should offer these choices.
New Urbanists also advocate for multiple transportation choices in a city. Really.
As a personal note, I'm not 100% convinced that New Urbanism should be the last word on urban design. But many of its ideas are logical, and it shouldn't be dismissed just because some people think free-flowing automobile traffic is always ideal. Also, I wish there was a message board out there that catered to urbanism geeks as well as this board caters to roadgeeks.
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 18, 2016, 02:45:10 AM
One of the problems with urban freeways of questionable value is that they take up space that could be put to more productive use. Often it's not just the space for the freeway mainline that's the problem; rather, the space required for interchanges is a large problem. If a surface-level boulevard with at-grade intersections can serve the same traffic needs as an underutilized freeway, then it frees space that can be used for tax-generating development or parkland by eliminating the need to use land for interchange ramps.
And this is really a problem I have hard time seeing as a problem outside few restricted areas like Manhattan - and i am not sure that is a real problem even there.
Last time I checked, US is somewhere in top 5 countries for total land area. What is the reason to squeeze more tax generating property into old borders of the old city which were drawn hundreds years ago? Are there any situations, where business was planning for a new development, but had to go to a different country for land use regions? Taxes - any time. Subsidies - sure, with lengthy negotiations. Land parcel? Maybe for 10000th Starbucks....
I can see the reason for denser population centers to cut commute mileage, but once this is brought to "just for the sake of it!" point, I am completely lost.
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 18, 2016, 02:45:10 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 16, 2016, 08:59:41 PM
The things that annoy me about new urbanism is this idea that all problems that affected the city can be blamed on road design and having interstates in the downtown area of cities. As we have said before, blaming this on roads and their design is short sited and not correct.
First of all, New Urbanism doesn't blame all of the city's problem on roads. It also considers separation of uses to be a large part of the problem.
QuoteTheir solution really annoys me, which usually "tear down the interstate and replace it with a boulevard" Doing this is asinine. Basically this would create a shitty congested mess with signals, more pollution, and make things more dangerous (pedestrian/cyclist conflicts with cars).
One of the problems with urban freeways of questionable value is that they take up space that could be put to more productive use. Often it's not just the space for the freeway mainline that's the problem; rather, the space required for interchanges is a large problem. If a surface-level boulevard with at-grade intersections can serve the same traffic needs as an underutilized freeway, then it frees space that can be used for tax-generating development or parkland by eliminating the need to use land for interchange ramps.
Quote
I don't think there's anything wrong with the design of our roads, but requirements should be changed. I think every road in a city should be required to have a sidewalk or multi-use path on at least one side of the road (obviously not on divided highways and interstates).
Decent walkability requires much more than just putting sidewalks along roads. Intersections still pose tremendous challenges. For one, intersections with wide turning radii hurt walkability because they allow motorists to make turns at relatively high speeds rather than slowing down to speeds that are safer for when pedestrian and car traffic mix. Lane widths are also a problem, as wider lanes allow motorists to feel more comfortable driving faster, which makes the road less safe for pedestrians to cross at unprotected crossings (crosswalks not controlled by a signal or a stop sign).
Now, I agree that full segregation of pedestrian and bicycle traffic from motor vehicle traffic would have an obvious safety benefit. But the CIAM ideal is too expensive to realize in today's economic climate, it's unrealistic in today's political climate (for better or worse), and the question of whether it would truly function well to serve urban vitality has long been a matter of debate.
Quote
New urbanists keep talking about mass transit being what we need, but the problem is it never is profitable and often under utilized for most cities in America. Some of the things they call for I agree with, like: mixed use development, bringing back the street grid, 20 min communities, and beautification projects. Road diets make sense in a lot of areas too. New urbanists hate the fact that America is car centric, I don't see this as a problem, what I advocate is to multiple choices for transportation in a city. If you want to walk, bike, drive, take the bus/subway, you have the right to do so and every major city should offer these choices.
New Urbanists also advocate for multiple transportation choices in a city. Really.
As a personal note, I'm not 100% convinced that New Urbanism should be the last word on urban design. But many of its ideas are logical, and it shouldn't be dismissed just because some people think free-flowing automobile traffic is always ideal. Also, I wish there was a message board out there that catered to urbanism geeks as well as this board caters to roadgeeks.
I do agree with your points, but I will say this to clarify what I was trying to say: I was referring to calls for getting rid of highways through downtown that generate a ton of traffic, removing those is asinine, you're referring to very low volume interstates like i-375 in Detroit, replacing the low volume interstates with at grade boulevards would be a good idea. Most of the complaining I hear regarding new urbanism is about roads, which is why I made that comment. Another huge problem is that our zoning laws suck.
how can zoning laws be changed to better address the problem of sprawl?
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 22, 2016, 07:17:50 PM
how can zoning laws be changed to better address the problem of sprawl?
Upzone the hell out of existing urban areas that have good access to non-car modes. Pretty simple in theory, but in practice an absolute pain to force through coalitions of NIMBYs and other groups.
In the suburbs, restricted development areas (e.g. urban growth boundaries) can help preserve productive farmlands and forestlands and not give in to sprawl.
Quote from: Bruce on May 22, 2016, 08:09:24 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 22, 2016, 07:17:50 PM
how can zoning laws be changed to better address the problem of sprawl?
Upzone the hell out of existing urban areas that have good access to non-car modes. Pretty simple in theory, but in practice an absolute pain to force through coalitions of NIMBYs and other groups.
Interesting what happens next.. And it is somewhat predictable. No money for new public transportation, buses and trains are overfilled.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 22, 2016, 07:17:50 PM
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.
But as how to change them, then it's simple. The appropriate legislative body passes the appropriate law/ordinance. I saw this done in Clark County, Ky., several years ago to require houses in rural areas to be on 10-acre lots throughout most of the county. This makes me glad I live in a mainly rural county where there is no countywide zoning.
I dont think sprawl is bad I actually hate the word, I just think denser development is best. But you are a person who likes spread out and rural areas, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that each type of area has it's pros and cons that people like
Quote from: hbelkins on May 23, 2016, 12:00:28 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 22, 2016, 07:17:50 PM
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 think, by definition, "sprawl" is a problem; the term only connotes undesirability, like "scourge" or "nuisance". So the question isn't whether sprawl is a problem, it's whether something is, in fact, sprawl. In other words, you wouldn't look at a development and say, "That's sprawl, but it's not a problem." Rather, you'd look at it and say, "That isn't a problem, so it isn't sprawl." And of course, someone else might say, "Yes it is," but that's another issue.
Quote from: empirestate on May 23, 2016, 12:14:29 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 23, 2016, 12:00:28 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 22, 2016, 07:17:50 PM
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 think, by definition, "sprawl" is a problem; the term only connotes undesirability, like "scourge" or "nuisance". So the question isn't whether sprawl is a problem, it's whether something is, in fact, sprawl. In other words, you wouldn't look at a development and say, "That's sprawl, but it's not a problem." Rather, you'd look at it and say, "That isn't a problem, so it isn't sprawl." And of course, someone else might say, "Yes it is," but that's another issue.
If it's a problem you often hear the term "blight"
Quote from: empirestate on May 23, 2016, 12:14:29 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 23, 2016, 12:00:28 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 22, 2016, 07:17:50 PM
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 think, by definition, "sprawl" is a problem; the term only connotes undesirability, like "scourge" or "nuisance". So the question isn't whether sprawl is a problem, it's whether something is, in fact, sprawl. In other words, you wouldn't look at a development and say, "That's sprawl, but it's not a problem." Rather, you'd look at it and say, "That isn't a problem, so it isn't sprawl." And of course, someone else might say, "Yes it is," but that's another issue.
So lets talk about city expansion, as opposed to urban congestion, overpopulation and crowding..
Yesterday's sprawl is tomorrow's gentrified neighborhood. Westchester, IL used to be a rural outpost west of Chicago that was served by the predecessor to the CTA until the early 1950's, when it was abandoned due to lack of patronage. If they'd held on for about 10 more years, infill would've completely surrounded the line.
Sometimes... however a lot of the 1950s-1970s sprawl is turning quickly into low-income neighborhoods. Not dense enough to be served well by transit, gas prices heading up over the course of decades, too far from employment, houses built cheaply and not to last, every little errand requires driving. The cities are the gentrifying neighborhoods.
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. :D
Quote from: hbelkins on May 23, 2016, 12:00:28 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 22, 2016, 07:17:50 PM
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 24, 2016, 06:21:59 AMThat 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.
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.
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...
Quote from: MisterSG1 on May 24, 2016, 08:16:51 AM
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.
Really poor analogies.
Obviously, your boss can tell you what to do. In return for $$. An economic relationship having nothing whatsoever to do with what we are talking about.
As to things like stop lights, again a poor analogy. Of course basic safety rules are necessary. What is not necessary is some elite deciding that of two possible and equally valid and safe choices, he knows better than you what you should do.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 24, 2016, 02:01:58 PM
Really poor analogies.
Obviously, your boss can tell you what to do. In return for $$. 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?
Quote from: MisterSG1 on May 24, 2016, 08:16:51 AM
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.
Quote from: kalvado on May 24, 2016, 02:42:46 PM
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 25, 2016, 07:10:57 AM
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?
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 22, 2016, 07:17:50 PM
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
Quote from: SP Cook on May 24, 2016, 06:21:59 AM
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 25, 2016, 07:10:57 AM
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!
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 25, 2016, 04:19:58 PM
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
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 25, 2016, 04:19:58 PM
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...
Quote from: kalvado on May 25, 2016, 05:04:00 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 25, 2016, 04:19:58 PM
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.
Quote
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 25, 2016, 04:19:58 PM
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?
Quote
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.
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 25, 2016, 09:19:49 PM
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.
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 25, 2016, 09:19:49 PM
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.
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 25, 2016, 09:19:49 PM
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...
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 25, 2016, 09:19:49 PM
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.
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 25, 2016, 09:19:49 PM
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
Quote from: SP Cook on May 24, 2016, 06:21:59 AM
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 24, 2016, 06:21:59 AM
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 24, 2016, 06:21:59 AM
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.
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 25, 2016, 04:19:58 PM
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.
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 25, 2016, 10:57:29 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 26, 2016, 09:50:37 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 25, 2016, 10:57:29 PM
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 26, 2016, 09:50:37 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 25, 2016, 10:57:29 PM
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.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 26, 2016, 04:18:22 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 26, 2016, 09:50:37 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 25, 2016, 10:57:29 PM
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?
Quote from: kalvado on May 26, 2016, 05:16:14 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 26, 2016, 04:18:22 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 26, 2016, 09:50:37 AM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on May 25, 2016, 10:57:29 PM
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.
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!)
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 26, 2016, 05:27:31 PM
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...
Quote from: kalvado on May 26, 2016, 05:48:23 PM
The road to hell is paved with good intentions...
Which is why planners never make it there. :-D
/Told to me by an urban planner who happens to be a very close relative. I've got a few engineer, architect, and lawyer ones in there as well.
//I'll be here till Thursday.
///Try the shrimp.
Quote from: Brandon on May 26, 2016, 05:59:25 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 26, 2016, 05:48:23 PM
The road to hell is paved with good intentions...
Which is why planners never make it there. :-D
/Told to me by an urban planner who happens to be a very close relative. I've got a few engineer, architect, and lawyer ones in there as well.
//I'll be here till Thursday.
///Try the shrimp.
This is second best one, right next to
what do they say in NASA instead of "it's not rocket science!" ?
Quote from: vdeane on May 26, 2016, 01:00:24 PM
Meanwhile, if the rest of the world started living like the US, we would absolute run out of everything.
You should think God that previous generations, the ones that followed wise policies that moved your forebearers from serfdom to whatever status you have today, had the wisdom to feel differently.
That pretty much sums up what should be the motto of environmentalism. "Let's pull the ladder up behind us". Both in terms of those less well off in the first world, and, a million times more sadly, those who do not yet live in it. All the while not actually doing anything PERSONALLY to live up to the pseudo-religious and junk science that all of this ho-ha is based on.
Fact is, given the moral courage to follow objective science based reason and understanding the special position of mankind in God's universe, the earth, after we are long gone, will have 100 of times more people living on it than today, all living lives that are as advanced from what we lived than ours are to those of the generations like Mathus and other junk scientists that saw mankind as a problem.
And there will still probably be people saying the same things then, still seeing resources as limited and mankind as a problem. They will be wrong too.
Where are you going to get these additional resources? There's only one Earth.
Energy, incidentally enough, is actually the easiest challenge to solve. Just put up a bunch of solar panels in places like Death Valley and the Sahara. Raw materials we might be able to supplement with asteroids, but it's quite expensive. Oil we don't need; even plastic can be made from hemp (and hemp-based plastic is biodegradable).
The challenge is food. While we're able to produce a lot more food today than 50 years ago, the food we eat today is also a lot less healthy and nutritious than it was 50 years ago. I don't believe that's a coincidence; in fact, it's something we should fear. Also, just look at all the deforestation that's occurring in places like the Amazon to grow crops. That is NOT sustainable.
And where will everyone live? Third world cities are HUGE and built at a density that makes NYC look like a rural area. They have traffic jams so bad that it takes DAYS for them to clear. Where are we going to put all those people?
Special position in the universe? I don't consider humanity to be more deserving of life or resources than any other life form on Earth or elsewhere.
What would you do, SP Cook? Turn the entirety of Earth's surface into suburbs and farm land? That doesn't sound like a place I'd like to live. The fact of the matter is, the world today is dependent on a large underclass of people living in extreme poverty. That's not just at all, but since the population is so large, there's no easy way to solve it. Like I said, I believe everyone is ENTITLED by right of being human to a middle class lifestyle... but it won't work with current population levels. What's the other choice, invade the first alien species humanity finds to steal their resources? That's evil (and unfortunately, probably exactly what will happen the moment humans figure out interstellar travel).
Quote from: SP Cook on May 27, 2016, 10:20:09 AM
the earth, after we are long gone, will have 100 of times more people living on it than today
Without getting too deep in this argument, I'm just curious about your math:
The earth has about 33 billion acres of land (not including Antarctica, but including land that is currently considered uninhabitable and/or un-arable). If the current world population is 7.4 billion, and you're stating several hundred times that number is sustainable, then let's just use 100x and say 740 billion people. Rounding, that's about 22 people per acre.
A typical American suburb seems to have a density of around 3,000 people per square mile (examples like Mesa, AZ; Hayward, CA; Plano, TX). This works out to 4.6875 people per acre.
So for 740 billion people, we'd be looking at almost five times the density of a typical American suburb - somewhere between the density of Boston and San Francisco - on every acre on the planet - before taking into account land that is simply not usable due to climate and/or topography, and land needed for agriculture.
I'm doing all of this math in light of your preference for suburban-style living. You speak of "pulling the ladder up behind us" but support the concept that we should (and will) have a planet where people will have no choice but to live in the type of densities you find displeasing - and they won't have the freedom all us currently enjoy to pick between high, mid, or low-density living, because there simply won't be the land to have that freedom. That kinda comes across (to me, anyhow) as "I will live how I want to live, and I'm unconcerned if future generations have the same choices or freedoms I have."
I'm not trying to challenge your beliefs, or argue for one type of living over the other - it was just that you've tried to give measured, reasoned responses in support of your side of this discussion, and that particular comment seemed a little hyperbolic.
Quote from: DTComposer on May 27, 2016, 02:04:46 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 27, 2016, 10:20:09 AM
the earth, after we are long gone, will have 100 of times more people living on it than today
Without getting too deep in this argument, I'm just curious about your math:
The earth has about 33 billion acres of land (not including Antarctica, but including land that is currently considered uninhabitable and/or un-arable). If the current world population is 7.4 billion, and you're stating several hundred times that number is sustainable, then let's just use 100x and say 740 billion people. Rounding, that's about 22 people per acre.
Maybe I am wrong - but I read the message in a different way: 100x7.4 billion over next generations. Which is to say, current population for another 5-7 thousand years... Which may be realistic.
As far as I remember, estimate is that about 70 billion of humans lived on planet Earth since
homo sapiens emerged as a species - so more than 10% are currently alive. Getting another factor of 10 doesn't look impossible
There are resources besides food that are at risk.
I like there to be wilderness. I like there to be places where there are truly dark skies at night. I like there to be places where species can live even if they cannot share suburbs, cropland, or clearcut areas with humans.
It's questionable whether all those things can continue within the US with our present population, let alone large increases. However, the present human population could easily be accommodated along with all those things if the population density was more like it was in the 1950s instead of the low density far flung suburbs that have come up since then.
Quote from: kkt on May 27, 2016, 06:14:56 PM
There are resources besides food that are at risk.
I like there to be wilderness. I like there to be places where there are truly dark skies at night. I like there to be places where species can live even if they cannot share suburbs, cropland, or clearcut areas with humans.
It's questionable whether all those things can continue within the US with our present population, let alone large increases. However, the present human population could easily be accommodated along with all those things if the population density was more like it was in the 1950s instead of the low density far flung suburbs that have come up since then.
Believe it or not, but suburbs are only a small part of human footprint. Suburb population density, as someone already mentioned, is about 4 people per acre. That is , if you think about it, one family home per one acre parcel. At the same time, there is approximately 1 acre of arable land per person - they say "one acre feeds one person".
So if you compact everyone to Manhattan density, you win at most 20% of footprint.
Quote from: kkt on May 27, 2016, 06:14:56 PM
There are resources besides food that are at risk.
I like there to be wilderness. I like there to be places where there are truly dark skies at night. I like there to be places where species can live even if they cannot share suburbs, cropland, or clearcut areas with humans.
It's questionable whether all those things can continue within the US with our present population, let alone large increases. However, the present human population could easily be accommodated along with all those things if the population density was more like it was in the 1950s instead of the low density far flung suburbs that have come up since then.
We need forests also to prevent desertification
Quote from: vdeane on May 27, 2016, 01:16:20 PM
Special position in the universe? I don't consider humanity to be more deserving of life or resources than any other life form on Earth or elsewhere.
I know nothing about your spiritual beliefs, or even if you have any at all, but this statement is 100 percent contradictory to the Judeo-Christian belief system. I think Genesis 1:26 is the definitive answer that refutes your opinion expressed above.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 27, 2016, 10:22:26 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 27, 2016, 01:16:20 PM
Special position in the universe? I don't consider humanity to be more deserving of life or resources than any other life form on Earth or elsewhere.
I know nothing about your spiritual beliefs, or even if you have any at all, but this statement is 100 percent contradictory to the Judeo-Christian belief system. I think Genesis 1:26 is the definitive answer that refutes your opinion expressed above.
let's leave arbitrary self professed beliefs out of this discussion please, we will only argue and I'm not interested in hearing us argue about that, this is a road discussion board not a religion board.
Now to get back on subject, an interesting way to end blight is to simply tear down all the abandoned buildings, many cities are doing this, like Detroit. Cities like portland and seattle are using infill to add to the city and not allow sprawl to happen (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11713668/growth-and-sprawl). These are all interesting ways to alleviate the recourse problem. But portland especially has a growing rent problem, with prices skyrocketing. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/the-real-roots-of-portlands-housing-crisis/482988/
another changing thing in cities is the elimination of parking requirements, parking lots are now becoming taboo in dense areas.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 28, 2016, 10:05:50 AM
Now to get back on subject, an interesting way to end blight is to simply tear down all the abandoned buildings, many cities are doing this, like Detroit. Cities like portland and seattle are using infill to add to the city and not allow sprawl to happen (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11713668/growth-and-sprawl). These are all interesting ways to alleviate the recourse problem. But portland especially has a growing rent problem, with prices skyrocketing. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/the-real-roots-of-portlands-housing-crisis/482988/
But that's been the policy of Detroit for decades now and it hasn't worked. It doesn't help that they aren't solving the root of the problem; an out of control crime rate, decayed city infrastructure, massive poverty and historic corruption from city hall. Not to mention...well demographics; Portland is almost 80% white while Detroit is almost 90% minority. There is much deeper problems in Detroit that were routed in bias have been there well over half a century that were ignored. SOOOOOOOOooooo....without really getting into social economics too much I'll just say that what work for a upper class city like Portland might not work for a lower class city like Detroit. Calling the Interstates the root of the decay of a city like Detroit is missing the mark completely, it was going to happen regardless.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 28, 2016, 10:14:58 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 28, 2016, 10:05:50 AM
Now to get back on subject, an interesting way to end blight is to simply tear down all the abandoned buildings, many cities are doing this, like Detroit. Cities like portland and seattle are using infill to add to the city and not allow sprawl to happen (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11713668/growth-and-sprawl). These are all interesting ways to alleviate the recourse problem. But portland especially has a growing rent problem, with prices skyrocketing. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/the-real-roots-of-portlands-housing-crisis/482988/
But that's been the policy of Detroit for decades now and it hasn't worked. It doesn't help that they aren't solving the root of the problem; an out of control crime rate, decayed city infrastructure, massive poverty and historic corruption from city hall. Not to mention...well demographics; Portland is almost 80% white while Detroit is almost 90% minority. There is much deeper problems in Detroit that were routed in bias have been there well over half a century that were ignored. SOOOOOOOOooooo....without really getting into social economics too much I'll just say that what work for a upper class city like Portland might not work for a lower class city like Detroit. Calling the Interstates the root of the decay of a city like Detroit is missing the mark completely, it was going to happen regardless.
i believe the idea behind demolishing buildings is more of a crime deterrent, you remove abandoned buildings to not allow illegal operations to occur inside, also it can be a safety issue. Not sure what you're implying on the race comments you made, please clarify, because it sounds racist to me...
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 28, 2016, 10:05:50 AM
Now to get back on subject, an interesting way to end blight is to simply tear down all the abandoned buildings, many cities are doing this, like Detroit. Cities like portland and seattle are using infill to add to the city and not allow sprawl to happen (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11713668/growth-and-sprawl). These are all interesting ways to alleviate the recourse problem. But portland especially has a growing rent problem, with prices skyrocketing. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/the-real-roots-of-portlands-housing-crisis/482988/
another changing thing in cities is the elimination of parking requirements, parking lots are now becoming taboo in dense areas.
Skyrocketing rent prices are sort of expected, I believe not "true" urban area avoids that. SF newspapers have a lot of horror stories...
And the root cause, I would say, is a simple fact that greenfield development is cheaper than brownfield. Pre-existing infrastructure can be an asset, when it comes to using existing roads and pipes for new buildings - as well as a liability, as 120-150 year old pipes tend to fail catastrophically, and old street alignment proves to be less than efficient.
I suspect, old cities would have to be mostly abandoned at some point, as full infrastructure rebuild would be required. Probably a few more decades at least, though..
Quote from: kalvado on May 28, 2016, 10:35:15 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 28, 2016, 10:05:50 AM
Now to get back on subject, an interesting way to end blight is to simply tear down all the abandoned buildings, many cities are doing this, like Detroit. Cities like portland and seattle are using infill to add to the city and not allow sprawl to happen (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11713668/growth-and-sprawl). These are all interesting ways to alleviate the recourse problem. But portland especially has a growing rent problem, with prices skyrocketing. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/the-real-roots-of-portlands-housing-crisis/482988/
another changing thing in cities is the elimination of parking requirements, parking lots are now becoming taboo in dense areas.
Skyrocketing rent prices are sort of expected, I believe not "true" urban area avoids that. SF newspapers have a lot of horror stories...
And the root cause, I would say, is a simple fact that greenfield development is cheaper than brownfield. Pre-existing infrastructure can be an asset, when it comes to using existing roads and pipes for new buildings - as well as a liability, as 120-150 year old pipes tend to fail catastrophically, and old street alignment proves to be less than efficient.
I suspect, old cities would have to be mostly abandoned at some point, as full infrastructure rebuild would be required. Probably a few more decades at least, though..
I doubt they'll need to be completely abandoned, but everything underground (pipes) is in desperate need to be replaced. In older areas of the city, the city literally has no idea whats underground or where it goes! I've talked to city officials that have found wooden pipes still in use in areas, hell there are still brick pipes in use in many cities, it's shocking how old a lot of the stuff is in cities. In my opinion, all of our underground infrastructure is the most in need to be replaced over everything else. I also agree with your rent point.
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 28, 2016, 10:19:54 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 28, 2016, 10:14:58 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 28, 2016, 10:05:50 AM
Now to get back on subject, an interesting way to end blight is to simply tear down all the abandoned buildings, many cities are doing this, like Detroit. Cities like portland and seattle are using infill to add to the city and not allow sprawl to happen (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11713668/growth-and-sprawl). These are all interesting ways to alleviate the recourse problem. But portland especially has a growing rent problem, with prices skyrocketing. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/the-real-roots-of-portlands-housing-crisis/482988/
But that's been the policy of Detroit for decades now and it hasn't worked. It doesn't help that they aren't solving the root of the problem; an out of control crime rate, decayed city infrastructure, massive poverty and historic corruption from city hall. Not to mention...well demographics; Portland is almost 80% white while Detroit is almost 90% minority. There is much deeper problems in Detroit that were routed in bias have been there well over half a century that were ignored. SOOOOOOOOooooo....without really getting into social economics too much I'll just say that what work for a upper class city like Portland might not work for a lower class city like Detroit. Calling the Interstates the root of the decay of a city like Detroit is missing the mark completely, it was going to happen regardless.
i believe the idea behind demolishing buildings is more of a crime deterrent, you remove abandoned buildings to not allow illegal operations to occur inside, also it can be a safety issue. Not sure what you're implying on the race comments you made, please clarify, because it sounds racist to me...
Actually I was inferring that a lot of racism by the white populace against minorities played a large roll in Detroit's downfall and urban sprawl....in fact it's undeniable it did. Basically the lead up to the 67 riots just the spark that lit the powder keg of what they called "white flight" in Detroit. My Grand Father was a police officer in the city of Detroit and believe me the police department had a huge bias against the black neighborhoods and so did the city. The current state of affairs in the city is just the culmination of everything that led up to the city starting to rip itself apart in the 1960s... Nobody in the Michigan state government has bothered to care about what was happening in Detroit until very recently when the city went bankrupt.
And how has tearing down buildings worked so far in Detroit in the last 25 years?...it hasn't. Basically you just end up with more vacant and overgrown lots with more blight. Nobody is building new neighborhoods in the cities, they just become barren wastelands that resemble ghost towns and worse war zones. There is too much abandonment in the city simply to bulldoze it all away and solve all the unaddressed problems. I think that something like that was the butt of satire in the Robocop movies with the whole "Delta City" plan. Did you know there is over 40,000 street lights out in Detroit and the average police response time is close to an hour?...not to mention about 40% poverty? I have yet to see any plans of substance meant to improve the current infrastructure or the lives of the current residents, all I've seen is more of these bull dozing plans. Hell I there was some brief talk of de-incorporating Detroit into several smaller cities but it was never really explored.
Thought this article might be of interest to you in regards to Detroit and abandoned homes:
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/special-reports/2015/05/14/detroit-abandoned-homes-volume-terrifying/27237787/
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 28, 2016, 10:46:46 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 28, 2016, 10:19:54 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 28, 2016, 10:14:58 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 28, 2016, 10:05:50 AM
Now to get back on subject, an interesting way to end blight is to simply tear down all the abandoned buildings, many cities are doing this, like Detroit. Cities like portland and seattle are using infill to add to the city and not allow sprawl to happen (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11713668/growth-and-sprawl). These are all interesting ways to alleviate the recourse problem. But portland especially has a growing rent problem, with prices skyrocketing. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/the-real-roots-of-portlands-housing-crisis/482988/
But that's been the policy of Detroit for decades now and it hasn't worked. It doesn't help that they aren't solving the root of the problem; an out of control crime rate, decayed city infrastructure, massive poverty and historic corruption from city hall. Not to mention...well demographics; Portland is almost 80% white while Detroit is almost 90% minority. There is much deeper problems in Detroit that were routed in bias have been there well over half a century that were ignored. SOOOOOOOOooooo....without really getting into social economics too much I'll just say that what work for a upper class city like Portland might not work for a lower class city like Detroit. Calling the Interstates the root of the decay of a city like Detroit is missing the mark completely, it was going to happen regardless.
i believe the idea behind demolishing buildings is more of a crime deterrent, you remove abandoned buildings to not allow illegal operations to occur inside, also it can be a safety issue. Not sure what you're implying on the race comments you made, please clarify, because it sounds racist to me...
Actually I was inferring that a lot of racism by the white populace against minorities played a large roll in Detroit's downfall and urban sprawl....in fact it's undeniable it did. Basically the lead up to the 67 riots just the spark that lit the powder keg of what they called "white flight" in Detroit. My Grand Father was a police officer in the city of Detroit and believe me the police department had a huge bias against the black neighborhoods and so did the city. The current state of affairs in the city is just the culmination of everything that led up to the city starting to rip itself apart in the 1960s... Nobody in the Michigan state government has bothered to care about what was happening in Detroit until very recently when the city went bankrupt.
And how has tearing down buildings worked so far in Detroit in the last 25 years?...it hasn't. Basically you just end up with more vacant and overgrown lots with more blight. Nobody is building new neighborhoods in the cities, they just become barren wastelands that resemble ghost towns and worse war zones. There is too much abandonment in the city simply to bulldoze it all away and solve all the unaddressed problems. I think that something like that was the butt of satire in the Robocop movies with the whole "Delta City" plan. Did you know there is over 40,000 street lights out in Detroit and the average police response time is close to an hour?...not to mention about 40% poverty? I have yet to see any plans of substance meant to improve the current infrastructure or the lives of the current residents, all I've seen is more of these bull dozing plans. Hell I there was some brief talk of de-incorporating Detroit into several smaller cities but it was never really explored.
Thought this article might be of interest to you in regards to Detroit and abandoned homes:
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/special-reports/2015/05/14/detroit-abandoned-homes-volume-terrifying/27237787/
Thanks for the clarification, I understand now
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 28, 2016, 10:48:37 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 28, 2016, 10:46:46 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 28, 2016, 10:19:54 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 28, 2016, 10:14:58 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 28, 2016, 10:05:50 AM
Now to get back on subject, an interesting way to end blight is to simply tear down all the abandoned buildings, many cities are doing this, like Detroit. Cities like portland and seattle are using infill to add to the city and not allow sprawl to happen (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/19/11713668/growth-and-sprawl). These are all interesting ways to alleviate the recourse problem. But portland especially has a growing rent problem, with prices skyrocketing. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/05/the-real-roots-of-portlands-housing-crisis/482988/
But that's been the policy of Detroit for decades now and it hasn't worked. It doesn't help that they aren't solving the root of the problem; an out of control crime rate, decayed city infrastructure, massive poverty and historic corruption from city hall. Not to mention...well demographics; Portland is almost 80% white while Detroit is almost 90% minority. There is much deeper problems in Detroit that were routed in bias have been there well over half a century that were ignored. SOOOOOOOOooooo....without really getting into social economics too much I'll just say that what work for a upper class city like Portland might not work for a lower class city like Detroit. Calling the Interstates the root of the decay of a city like Detroit is missing the mark completely, it was going to happen regardless.
i believe the idea behind demolishing buildings is more of a crime deterrent, you remove abandoned buildings to not allow illegal operations to occur inside, also it can be a safety issue. Not sure what you're implying on the race comments you made, please clarify, because it sounds racist to me...
Actually I was inferring that a lot of racism by the white populace against minorities played a large roll in Detroit's downfall and urban sprawl....in fact it's undeniable it did. Basically the lead up to the 67 riots just the spark that lit the powder keg of what they called "white flight" in Detroit. My Grand Father was a police officer in the city of Detroit and believe me the police department had a huge bias against the black neighborhoods and so did the city. The current state of affairs in the city is just the culmination of everything that led up to the city starting to rip itself apart in the 1960s... Nobody in the Michigan state government has bothered to care about what was happening in Detroit until very recently when the city went bankrupt.
And how has tearing down buildings worked so far in Detroit in the last 25 years?...it hasn't. Basically you just end up with more vacant and overgrown lots with more blight. Nobody is building new neighborhoods in the cities, they just become barren wastelands that resemble ghost towns and worse war zones. There is too much abandonment in the city simply to bulldoze it all away and solve all the unaddressed problems. I think that something like that was the butt of satire in the Robocop movies with the whole "Delta City" plan. Did you know there is over 40,000 street lights out in Detroit and the average police response time is close to an hour?...not to mention about 40% poverty? I have yet to see any plans of substance meant to improve the current infrastructure or the lives of the current residents, all I've seen is more of these bull dozing plans. Hell I there was some brief talk of de-incorporating Detroit into several smaller cities but it was never really explored.
Thought this article might be of interest to you in regards to Detroit and abandoned homes:
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/special-reports/2015/05/14/detroit-abandoned-homes-volume-terrifying/27237787/
Thanks for the clarification, I understand now
Speaking of Detroit, I'm only 9 minutes into this video but this was a hell of a gem from 1961:
It's amazing how much 55 years can really do to a city. It's so strange to see so much optimism and life in the city. I vaguely remember crowds in downtown in the late 70s and early 80s. The one that always stuck in my mind was the Hudson's Store on Woodward and Gratiot since my parents loved to camp out there during the Thanksgiving Parade every year. So many of these buildings are either in ruins or just plain gone nowadays. I actually have some really nice photos from Michigan Central Depot of the window installation that has taken place on the top floors, there is even a video of a train pulling in.
But for what it's worth I think that the decline of blue collar cities was inevitable one way or another. Post-WWII there was a huge shift in American culture from producer to consumer which has only increased over time. People had money and didn't want to live in older cities like Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland or Pittsburg....and has time went on didn't want to work in factories. Cities around the country were already building freeways and the Interstate system was just an expansion on that idea, Detroit was one of them. The problem you ran into with older cities is that they were built around a small unplanned urban core that was outdated by the Industrial Revolution and Automotive age. Newer cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix grew up mostly in post War society which in turns reflects their success. Basically they are white collar, spread out, in warm climates and have a huge degree of urban (caught this was a bad phrase from reading earlier posts) planning which all contributed to them taking over as the new places people are moving.
Incidentally it's funny we're discussing bulldozing large sections of urban blight. As silly as the movies got Robocop actually had a lot of in-jokes that only people from Detroit would get. I can't believe that I actually found the Delta City presentation from Robocop 2. :-D
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 26, 2016, 05:27:31 PM
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 one basic idea that you can't deny, and I have found it very unusual in that you have seemed to flip-flop on the whole thing since this thread started, is that there is definitely an agenda to discourage car use. Case in point, when Star Wars opened up, the theatre showed this piece of propaganda before the movie started, needless to say, I left and demanded a refund and I got it, and have never went to that theatre again:
Listen to it, "We're investing in transit to get cars off the road", sure transit is great if you are fortunate to live and work within easy usage of the transit system, but if you had to go across the entire GTA by transit, even in the worst of traffic, would take significantly longer. I mean a 40 minute drive becoming a 3 hour transit run. Green politics aside, even if they made cars run on say salt water and there was no emissions of any kind, in that it was basically as clean as a bicycle, there would still be the issue of congestion.
What I understand about congestion is something I've researched over the years, I do have plenty of solutions and ideas for this, but as this is a general board, if you want me to talk about many of the GTA solutions, I'll be gladly to discuss them.
As for what I was saying about a cold neighborhood, I was referring to CityPlace in Toronto:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/CityPlaceSkyBridge3.JPG/1024px-CityPlaceSkyBridge3.JPG)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/Cityplaceview.jpg)
It's not a neighborhood per se like other parts of downtown (and also why many people like downtown in the first place), it is literally just buildings. I didn't bring it up, but I drove a Phoenixer while I was driving for Uber to that neighborhood and he literally said the same thing about it just being buildings.
Also, the mixed use development in these buildings may try to develop a community, but do you know what kind of stores lie at the bottom of these buildings.....the EXACT same kind of stores you find in your typical suburban strip mall or power center, there's even a big box grocery store at the bottom of one of these buildings. This is why I described it as "urban suburbia", there are no mom and pops to be found here my friend, just your usual multinational chains at the bottom that are in the endless strip malls that suburbia gets a lot of criticism about. I'm surprised Walmart hasn't tried to open a store at the bottom of such a tower.
There's also something of interest as well, a lot of these new condo neighborhoods are incidentally right next to freeways, in fact you'd probably find more density in those condo neighborhoods than in a lot of the old city of Toronto. For instance, this (in)famous photo of the complete Highway 401 shutdown in 2008 was obviously taken from a condo high rise in Downtown North York:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Evacuated_Highway_401_Color.jpg)
And boy, just 8 years later on, there are a LOT more buildings in this area now, mind you this area also parallels the Sheppard Subway, but convenience to both rapid transit and a freeway allows for a desirable area for high rise condos. The high rise condo neighborhood that parallels Lake Shore is not close to any real rapid transit, nor is the new condo neighborhood off of Highway 427:
(https://seanmarshall1.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/img_8568-001.jpg)
And let's not mention, although outside of the City of Toronto, the so called Mississauga "downtown", again it's just a condo neighborhood but there are some office buildings here, only 3 or 4 mid rises, part of the appeal is the convenient access from Highway 403.
(https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/gta/2014/02/21/mississauga_on_the_eve_of_hazel_mccallions_departure_hume/mississauga_skyline.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Furbantoronto.ca%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fdisplay-slideshow%2Fimages%2Farticles%2F2013%2F04%2F7425%2Furbantoronto-7425-25441.jpg&hash=401ff35976fa409aa5dc41edd3c78cfd6051ad95)
Quote from: MisterSG1 on May 30, 2016, 01:33:11 AM
The one basic idea that you can't deny, and I have found it very unusual in that you have seemed to flip-flop on the whole thing since this thread started, is that there is definitely an agenda to discourage car use. Case in point, when Star Wars opened up, the theatre showed this piece of propaganda before the movie started, needless to say, I left and demanded a refund and I got it, and have never went to that theatre again:
There is just one point that makes sense: energy use for commute. Which is high for cars. Which is not really low for public transportation as well (significantly lower for rail though), especially when you take into account less than completely jammed operation outside rush hour, and mostly empty return trips. But one thing public transportation (rather system workable with public transportation) does - it reduces average commute distance with high density development neat subway route. Exactly what you're talking about.
Everything else is pretty much business as usual: bullshit from professional politicians and low educated public buying it.
Ultimate low commute layout is a dorm for workers just above production floor; second best - condos right outside safety perimeter around the factory. Those don't take into account complex commute structure - e.g. family members not working at the same factory (office building). Nor it takes into account a need for mobile workforce, not being bound to a single factory.
Now other unfortunate truth is that earth is running out of resources, and 20 miles commute in a car is a luxury we cannot afford in a long run. Unless there is a fundamental change in our capabilities - like fusion reactors coming online. Solar, in my opinion, is another bandaid..
Another thing is cost: I am willing, like most people, to get into a debt of $20-30-40k and associated monthly payments to have a car parked by my window. Assuming I can get said car RIGHT AWAY. Getting in a same financial arrangements to get subway running by the time I retire? Well, maybe... Same with fares - we love to complain about a need to pay 2-3 cents per mile in taxes, but the fact that NYC MTA is most sound transit system with almost 50% expenses covered by fares often escapes public attention. In fact, there was a huge outctry about fare increase by woopnig 10%.
Bottom line? I am not optimistic about the future. Just me.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on May 30, 2016, 01:33:11 AM
The one basic idea that you can't deny, and I have found it very unusual in that you have seemed to flip-flop on the whole thing since this thread started, is that there is definitely an agenda to discourage car use. Case in point, when Star Wars opened up, the theatre showed this piece of propaganda before the movie started, needless to say, I left and demanded a refund and I got it, and have never went to that theatre again:
Listen to it, "We're investing in transit to get cars off the road", sure transit is great if you are fortunate to live and work within easy usage of the transit system, but if you had to go across the entire GTA by transit, even in the worst of traffic, would take significantly longer. I mean a 40 minute drive becoming a 3 hour transit run.
If this were true, transit wouldn't exist in cities and regions where automobile transportation also exists. No matter which way a government tries to "push" people, the public is perfectly able to choose which methods of transportation to utilize given what's available to them. That's the reason why, for example, I took the Metra train into Chicago from Aurora, Illinois, because the expressway connection (I-290) is grossly inadequate. In Toronto, the 401 is the busiest highway in North America, with 16 lanes in some places, and yet it's
still jammed up every day. This indicates a stark deficiency in Toronto's methods in transportation infrastructure investment. There are forms of passenger rail and other modes of transit that aren't your urban subways and elevated rail that make stops every 1/2 mile. What Toronto probably needs is a strong network of regional rail transit lines- from the city into the surrounding suburbs, especially parallel to the Lake Ontario shoreline.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on May 30, 2016, 01:33:11 AM
Green politics aside, even if they made cars run on say salt water and there was no emissions of any kind, in that it was basically as clean as a bicycle, there would still be the issue of congestion.
That's what I'm saying. I agree, we need to solve problems for humanity, but if we just made one train, that's a bunch of wasted emissions from idling cars we're taking care of right there. If a transportation agency is blocking all solutions involving trains and buses that aren't "green" enough, that's a little short-sighted, I think. Moving auto passengers to a bus or train helps reduce pollution in itself, by helping to mitigate congestion. What's that? You want to be greener? Well, help people get to their destinations more efficiently and THAT HELPS REDUCE POLLUTION TOO. I see your point there.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on May 30, 2016, 01:33:11 AM
What I understand about congestion is something I've researched over the years, I do have plenty of solutions and ideas for this, but as this is a general board, if you want me to talk about many of the GTA solutions, I'll be gladly to discuss them.
As for what I was saying about a cold neighborhood, I was referring to CityPlace in Toronto:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/CityPlaceSkyBridge3.JPG/1024px-CityPlaceSkyBridge3.JPG)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/Cityplaceview.jpg)
It's not a neighborhood per se like other parts of downtown (and also why many people like downtown in the first place), it is literally just buildings. I didn't bring it up, but I drove a Phoenixer while I was driving for Uber to that neighborhood and he literally said the same thing about it just being buildings.
Also, the mixed use development in these buildings may try to develop a community, but do you know what kind of stores lie at the bottom of these buildings.....the EXACT same kind of stores you find in your typical suburban strip mall or power center, there's even a big box grocery store at the bottom of one of these buildings. This is why I described it as "urban suburbia", there are no mom and pops to be found here my friend, just your usual multinational chains at the bottom that are in the endless strip malls that suburbia gets a lot of criticism about. I'm surprised Walmart hasn't tried to open a store at the bottom of such a tower.
There's also something of interest as well, a lot of these new condo neighborhoods are incidentally right next to freeways, in fact you'd probably find more density in those condo neighborhoods than in a lot of the old city of Toronto. For instance, this (in)famous photo of the complete Highway 401 shutdown in 2008 was obviously taken from a condo high rise in Downtown North York:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Evacuated_Highway_401_Color.jpg)
And boy, just 8 years later on, there are a LOT more buildings in this area now, mind you this area also parallels the Sheppard Subway, but convenience to both rapid transit and a freeway allows for a desirable area for high rise condos. The high rise condo neighborhood that parallels Lake Shore is not close to any real rapid transit, nor is the new condo neighborhood off of Highway 427: {image}
And let's not mention, although outside of the City of Toronto, the so called Mississauga "downtown", again it's just a condo neighborhood but there are some office buildings here, only 3 or 4 mid rises, part of the appeal is the convenient access from Highway 403.
{images}
Mixed-use developments are awesome. They greatly reduce or eliminate trips generated from home-to-business. But this occurs whether or not the businesses that take up residence are chains or mom-and-pop establishments. Also, residential demand is largely based on general access to transportation networks that will connect them to their job. The success of a residential development will be based on its proximity to any transportation, whether it's road, rail, or ferry. If Toronto is heavily road-based, then most of the development will be occurring along roads. This does nothing to prove that roadway development is more conducive to residential growth compared to transit development. Come to Chicago...the biggest, densest suburban residential developments occur right next to the train stations along radial lines connecting to the city. Dense, high-profile residential development also occurs along the Interstates, but there is no tendency for highway-influenced residential development to dominate the railway-influenced variety; people just want SOME way to get to where they work and play. Lots of people in transit-enabled cities like New York and Chicago live without cars--it can sound pretty far-fetched to someone from Toronto, or from the boonies, in my case. :)
the reason why mom and pop stores never occur in a lot of mixed use facilities is due to the fact that big box stores exist at all. whether anyone likes it or not, items are cheaper at big box stores, and until that changes, and it won't, mom and pop can't compete. And i never flip flopped on the issue as with every issue, it is nuanced. Like I have said before, I want every major city to have multiple choices of transport. As much as I love roads, I believe we do need to have less cars on the road. And no I am not for forcing it through legislation, again it's everyone's right to choose which way they think is best, but having choices is necessary for this to happen. Cars should always be an option, just not the ONLY option.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on May 30, 2016, 01:33:11 AM
The one basic idea that you can't deny, and I have found it very unusual in that you have seemed to flip-flop on the whole thing since this thread started, is that there is definitely an agenda to discourage car use. Case in point, when Star Wars opened up, the theatre showed this piece of propaganda before the movie started, needless to say, I left and demanded a refund and I got it, and have never went to that theatre again:
Listen to it, "We're investing in transit to get cars off the road", sure transit is great if you are fortunate to live and work within easy usage of the transit system, but if you had to go across the entire GTA by transit, even in the worst of traffic, would take significantly longer. I mean a 40 minute drive becoming a 3 hour transit run. Green politics aside, even if they made cars run on say salt water and there was no emissions of any kind, in that it was basically as clean as a bicycle, there would still be the issue of congestion.
You walked out of a movie and boycotted a theater because they sold time to advertising that could be interpreted as not accommodating directly to your interests? Isn't that a little... extreme?
Quote from: vdeane on May 27, 2016, 01:16:20 PM
Energy, incidentally enough, is actually the easiest challenge to solve. Just put up a bunch of solar panels in places like Death Valley and the Sahara. Raw materials we might be able to supplement with asteroids, but it's quite expensive.
Iiiiit's not nearly as simple as you make it sound. As great as it is to put solar generation in places with lots of sunlight, there remain two non-trivial problems:
1) Transmitting that electricity from where it is generated to where it is used
2) Having sufficient electricity storage capacity to account for the fact that the profile of when the electricity is generated and when it is used will not match.
Item number 1, in addition to being a costly endeavor, is also a political issue. Under this sort of scenario, countries like Libya, Algeria, etc. would effectively own Europe because Europe would be dependent on them for their electricity.
Item number 2 is the even bigger problem because the technology necessary to store the amount of electricity that would be required in a reasonable amount of space
does not exist, and while it may exist at some point in the distant future it's not exactly around the corner.
There is no silver bullet for this - electricity is currently generated from a diverse variety of sources, and will continue to be generated from a diverse variety of sources even in a world where fossil fuels have been phased out.
Quote from: kalvado on May 30, 2016, 10:32:44 AM
There is just one point that makes sense: energy use for commute. Which is high for cars. Which is not really low for public transportation as well (significantly lower for rail though), especially when you take into account less than completely jammed operation outside rush hour, and mostly empty return trips. But one thing public transportation (rather system workable with public transportation) does - it reduces average commute distance with high density development neat subway route.
There is a very good point here, though, that efficiency in transportation can be achieved not only by making our vehicles use less energy to travel the same distance, but also by planning our built environment so as to reduce the necessary distance for routine trips. Greater density is one way of going about this but another is to hack away at the postwar sprawl staples of cul-de-sacs everywhere and single use zoning.
No neighborhood should ever have any dead end streets unless either:
A) they are stub ends awaiting future extension as the neighborhood grows
B) they are dictated by geography, such as a street dead ending at the edge of a body of water or near a hill that is too steep for a car to traverse.
C) The resulting lack of street connectivity is compensated for by other functional benefits, e.g. a street dead ending at the edge of a freeway or expressway in order to maintain controlled access.
The reason why is simple: dead end streets require people who live on them to take a circuitous route to get anywhere that isn't in the one direction the street goes. A better connected grid reduces travel distances, and by virtue of doing so makes walking or biking more practical. It also reduces congestion on arterials by allowing local traffic to pass through neighborhoods.
As for single use zoning, this is a problem because when you live in a place where everywhere within a couple miles of you is legally only allowed to contain houses, you need to travel extra distance to get anywhere that isn't someone else's house. Rather than just building a subdivision full of houses, put a grocery store in there so the people who live there can go shopping without having to travel too far. Zone for mixed use.
Incidentally, this even worked as an effective congestion reduction strategy in SimCity. A couple commercial or industrial tiles scattered around your residential zones and sometimes Sims would complete their trips without ever even using the road because they'd find the zone they needed right next door.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 04, 2016, 10:16:07 PM
Iiiiit's not nearly as simple as you make it sound. As great as it is to put solar generation in places with lots of sunlight, there remain two non-trivial problems:
1) Transmitting that electricity from where it is generated to where it is used
2) Having sufficient electricity storage capacity to account for the fact that the profile of when the electricity is generated and when it is used will not match.
Item number 1, in addition to being a costly endeavor, is also a political issue. Under this sort of scenario, countries like Libya, Algeria, etc. would effectively own Europe because Europe would be dependent on them for their electricity.
Item number 2 is the even bigger problem because the technology necessary to store the amount of electricity that would be required in a reasonable amount of space does not exist, and while it may exist at some point in the distant future it's not exactly around the corner.
There is no silver bullet for this - electricity is currently generated from a diverse variety of sources, and will continue to be generated from a diverse variety of sources even in a world where fossil fuels have been phased out.
Connecting the world's energy grid would go a long way toward reducing the problem, but I know that's easier said than done.
QuoteThere is a very good point here, though, that efficiency in transportation can be achieved not only by making our vehicles use less energy to travel the same distance, but also by planning our built environment so as to reduce the necessary distance for routine trips. Greater density is one way of going about this but another is to hack away at the postwar sprawl staples of cul-de-sacs everywhere and single use zoning.
No neighborhood should ever have any dead end streets unless either:
A) they are stub ends awaiting future extension as the neighborhood grows
B) they are dictated by geography, such as a street dead ending at the edge of a body of water or near a hill that is too steep for a car to traverse.
C) The resulting lack of street connectivity is compensated for by other functional benefits, e.g. a street dead ending at the edge of a freeway or expressway in order to maintain controlled access.
The reason why is simple: dead end streets require people who live on them to take a circuitous route to get anywhere that isn't in the one direction the street goes. A better connected grid reduces travel distances, and by virtue of doing so makes walking or biking more practical. It also reduces congestion on arterials by allowing local traffic to pass through neighborhoods.
I'm not entirely convinced that we should give up on Radburn-style planning. Sidewalk/pedestrian path connectivity is truly important, but I'm not convinced that streets always need to cut through. The landscape-oriented approach central to places like Radburn and Lafayette Park provides a public realm of exceptional quality, although fundamentally different from the New Urbanist ideal, and the pedestrian paths separated from car traffic can be peaceful settings even when higher residential densities are involved. Part of the problem is that it's not easy to plan places like this on a large scale when you're not starting from an undeveloped landscape--or starting from scratch on a previously developed landscape, and tabula rasa planning has such a bad history that it's questionable whether it should even be considered as a viable option.
Of course, New Urbanism talks about how the modernist hierarchy of streets leads to congestion when everyone has to converge onto the collector street from the local streets, but is the old-fashioned street grid really the only solution? I think this is more of an open-ended question rather than an easy answer.
QuoteAs for single use zoning, this is a problem because when you live in a place where everywhere within a couple miles of you is legally only allowed to contain houses, you need to travel extra distance to get anywhere that isn't someone else's house. Rather than just building a subdivision full of houses, put a grocery store in there so the people who live there can go shopping without having to travel too far. Zone for mixed use.
I would say, at the very least, retail should not be treated as an afterthought.
QuoteIncidentally, this even worked as an effective congestion reduction strategy in SimCity. A couple commercial or industrial tiles scattered around your residential zones and sometimes Sims would complete their trips without ever even using the road because they'd find the zone they needed right next door.
Interesting observation. Personally, I have a hard time getting into SimCity because it doesn't treat the details of urban development in a way that satisfies me.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 04, 2016, 10:16:07 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 30, 2016, 10:32:44 AM
There is just one point that makes sense: energy use for commute. Which is high for cars. Which is not really low for public transportation as well (significantly lower for rail though), especially when you take into account less than completely jammed operation outside rush hour, and mostly empty return trips. But one thing public transportation (rather system workable with public transportation) does - it reduces average commute distance with high density development neat subway route.
There is a very good point here, though, that efficiency in transportation can be achieved not only by making our vehicles use less energy to travel the same distance, but also by planning our built environment so as to reduce the necessary distance for routine trips. Greater density is one way of going about this but another is to hack away at the postwar sprawl staples of cul-de-sacs everywhere and single use zoning.
No neighborhood should ever have any dead end streets unless either:
A) they are stub ends awaiting future extension as the neighborhood grows
B) they are dictated by geography, such as a street dead ending at the edge of a body of water or near a hill that is too steep for a car to traverse.
C) The resulting lack of street connectivity is compensated for by other functional benefits, e.g. a street dead ending at the edge of a freeway or expressway in order to maintain controlled access.
The reason why is simple: dead end streets require people who live on them to take a circuitous route to get anywhere that isn't in the one direction the street goes. A better connected grid reduces travel distances, and by virtue of doing so makes walking or biking more practical. It also reduces congestion on arterials by allowing local traffic to pass through neighborhoods.
As for single use zoning, this is a problem because when you live in a place where everywhere within a couple miles of you is legally only allowed to contain houses, you need to travel extra distance to get anywhere that isn't someone else's house. Rather than just building a subdivision full of houses, put a grocery store in there so the people who live there can go shopping without having to travel too far. Zone for mixed use.
Incidentally, this even worked as an effective congestion reduction strategy in SimCity. A couple commercial or industrial tiles scattered around your residential zones and sometimes Sims would complete their trips without ever even using the road because they'd find the zone they needed right next door.
Single factor optimization which doesn't take into account complexity of the world. Such discussion is a very good try for elementary school level, though; and could even get a C, maybe B- on a good day, in middle school.
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 04, 2016, 11:44:20 PM
I would say, at the very least, retail should not be treated as an afterthought.
Retail is evolving more than most of urban development.
Mom and pop store gave way to Sears, with Walmart coming next - and likely failing as well in face of Amazon.
I am really not sure what is coming next, but I suspect old-style retail revenue will continue dropping.. So it is good idea to reserve more room for retail, as it can be later converted to parks...
Quote from: stridentweasel on June 04, 2016, 11:44:20 PM
I'm not entirely convinced that we should give up on Radburn-style planning. Sidewalk/pedestrian path connectivity is truly important, but I'm not convinced that streets always need to cut through. The landscape-oriented approach central to places like Radburn and Lafayette Park provides a public realm of exceptional quality, although fundamentally different from the New Urbanist ideal, and the pedestrian paths separated from car traffic can be peaceful settings even when higher residential densities are involved. Part of the problem is that it's not easy to plan places like this on a large scale when you're not starting from an undeveloped landscape--or starting from scratch on a previously developed landscape, and tabula rasa planning has such a bad history that it's questionable whether it should even be considered as a viable option.
I wouldn't be surprised if opinion on proper grid depends on person location
Duke87's location is Queens - and as far as I understand, that is relatively flat unchallenging area with well defined shorelines and little hills.
Honestly speaking, I expected someone from relatively flat Kansas to be more conductive to those ideas...
Hill or river/creek valley or depression can easily make area one-way walkable, and connections between local built up areas impractical even on small scale...
Quote from: kalvado on June 04, 2016, 11:49:28 PM
Single factor optimization which doesn't take into account complexity of the world. Such discussion is a very good try for elementary school level, though; and could even get a C, maybe B- on a good day, in middle school.
Thank you for grading my essay. I was concerned I wasn't going to pass this class. :eyebrow:
And yes, obviously, there are reasons that dead end streets and single use zoning exist - the humans that live on/in them have deemed them aesthetically appealing, like that no one will ever pass down their street unless they live on it or know someone who does because it makes things quieter/makes them feel safer, etc. Things like better connected streets do, admittedly, optimize travel distance at the expense of these other qualities that some people seek. I wouldn't dismiss that as "single factor optimization", though. Anyone who wants to live on a cul-de-sac is perfectly welcome to move into one of the many that already exist. But that doesn't mean we should keep building more of them, since they are highly inefficient.
Also, I do not reasonably expect that every new neighborhood is going to be built exactly as I prescribed, since I am not the ruler of the world. I do, however, state that as what I believe to be the ideal circumstance, knowing that what actually happens in practice will be some compromise between that and what others believe to be the ideal circumstance. That is, after all, how planning works.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 05, 2016, 12:36:58 AM
And yes, obviously, there are reasons that dead end streets and single use zoning exist - the humans that live on/in them have deemed them aesthetically appealing, like that no one will ever pass down their street unless they live on it or know someone who does because it makes things quieter/makes them feel safer, etc. Things like better connected streets do, admittedly, optimize travel distance at the expense of these other qualities that some people seek. I wouldn't dismiss that as "single factor optimization", though. Anyone who wants to live on a cul-de-sac is perfectly welcome to move into one of the many that already exist. But that doesn't mean we should keep building more of them, since they are highly inefficient.
OK, to improve your grade - would you please analyze advantages and disadvantages of different transportation networks for emergencies: riot control will be eventually very important in such artificially designed neighborhoods; quarantine/ pathogen propagation control may follow; shock wave from nuclear blast or good ol' firestorm? Or just prevailing and storm winds propagation within the city?
City geometry has to accommodate much more than simple transportation efficiency in everyday operations. Optimal degree of connectivity may vary for different approaches.
And we didn't touch any economic factors yet, which is even bigger can of worms.
If "how does this transportation network handle riot control" is a serious question being asked during planning, you miiight be living in a police state.
And with that I'm done, since this debate has now entered the realm of the absurd.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 05, 2016, 06:21:26 PM
If "how does this transportation network handle riot control" is a serious question being asked during planning, you miiight be living in a police state.
And with that I'm done, since this debate has now entered the realm of the absurd.
If you live in the world, where emergency preparedness is limited to once a year fire drill, you are really happy person.
I, for one, always remember that Interstates are actually National System of Interstate and
Defense Highways. And you're probably too young to remember how transportation network was put into emergency mode on 9/11/2001...
A better question might be whether to discuss the nature of free speech in a democracy for those who do not own the media vs. hijacking a thread and falling on deaf ears anyway.
Quote from: kalvado on June 05, 2016, 08:52:07 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on June 05, 2016, 06:21:26 PM
If "how does this transportation network handle riot control" is a serious question being asked during planning, you miiight be living in a police state.
And with that I'm done, since this debate has now entered the realm of the absurd.
If you live in the world, where emergency preparedness is limited to once a year fire drill, you are really happy person.
I, for one, always remember that Interstates are actually National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. And you're probably too young to remember how transportation network was put into emergency mode on 9/11/2001...
Get real, you know as well as I do that they used the excuse of National Defense in order to build the IHS, it's the only way the Feds could do it constitutionally, if such a network was in the interests of National Defense.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 05, 2016, 09:07:39 PM
A better question might be, "How do you keep rioters off the transportation network?" (Thinking about those idiotic Thug Lives Matter protestors blocking freeways in major cities.
Get the police who are too much of cowards to force them off the road, if they do not leave, start firing at them, look, you can protest all you want, but as soon as you start disrupting the economy by such measures of blocking a freeway, that's an act of war in my opinion. Call me extreme but that's how I feel. I'm sure the silent majority agrees with me.
MisterSG1: it's a horrible idea to start shooting hep kittens. All the hep cat lovers will take over the media and prevent you from taking out the trash. I definitely agree with you that hep cat lives don't matter at all, but too many otherwise good people believe that they do and will turn against any upstanding white folks who try to protect their ways of life.
Quote from: NE2 on June 06, 2016, 11:48:33 AM
MisterSG1: it's a horrible idea to start shooting hep kittens. All the hep cat lovers will take over the media and prevent you from taking out the trash. I definitely agree with you that hep cat lives don't matter at all, but too many otherwise good people believe that they do and will turn against any upstanding white folks who try to protect their ways of life.
Ok, I may have went too far in saying that lethal force should be used, but what I was saying should happen is that the cops shouldn't put up with it and they should clear the road immediately. A bunch of LRADs will have them running for the hills.
Funny "Black Lives Matter" should be mentioned, I saw someone yesterday wearing a shirt that said "Black Lives Matter" who was to be my uber passenger, and when I seen that shirt I cancelled the ride and took off like a bat out of hell, I don't need that trouble.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 06, 2016, 11:57:12 AM
Funny "Black Lives Matter" should be mentioned, I saw someone yesterday wearing a shirt that said "Black Lives Matter" who was to be my uber passenger, and when I seen that shirt I cancelled the ride and took off like a bat out of hell, I don't need that trouble.
Between boycotting movie theaters for running pro-mass-transit PSAs and denying rides based on customers' t-shirt slogans, you're starting to come off as a bit of an alarmist. What sort of "trouble" are you sparing yourself?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 06, 2016, 12:13:14 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 06, 2016, 11:57:12 AM
Funny "Black Lives Matter" should be mentioned, I saw someone yesterday wearing a shirt that said "Black Lives Matter" who was to be my uber passenger, and when I seen that shirt I cancelled the ride and took off like a bat out of hell, I don't need that trouble.
Between boycotting movie theaters for running pro-mass-transit PSAs and denying rides based on customers' t-shirt slogans, you're starting to come off as a bit of an alarmist. What sort of "trouble" are you sparing yourself?
What do you mean? I'm not troubled by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, I will admit I overreacted to that Ontario government PSA, it just made me upset when I saw it.
As for "Black Lives Matter", citing information on this that is factual generally gets you called the R word. Let me put it bluntly, although no black passenger has ever threatened me, I've picked up six black passengers so far with my time with Uber, and four out of six of them disrespect my vehicle by eating in the vehicle and causing a mess, and they have a sort of entitlement mentality with my experience. The car needs to be kept spotless as any dirt can give you lower ratings by future passengers, and too many low ratings and uber will deactivate you.
In NYC, it's common knowledge that it's difficult for a black man to hail a cab. One might first call it racism, but consider where most NYC taxi drivers are from, a good portion of them are immigrants from African countries themselves. NYC cabbies with experience have noticed that black passengers are more highly likely to try and "bolt" after the cab ride to avoid paying the fare, or to try robbing the driver (Uber actually eliminates both of these issues with its system) obviously something happens with the cab drivers with a prior experience of picking up a black passenger that causes this to happen. There's plenty of evidence about this, google it if you don't believe me.
When you look at cities that actually publicize racial statistics on crime, it backs up the unfortunate notion that many perceive as racism. The real questions that should be asked is why are these crime stats the way they are. I'm trying to be rational about the whole thing, but I know posting this will seem like I'm walking on eggshells.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 06, 2016, 12:44:24 PM
citing information on this that is factual generally gets you called the R word.
You are a Repub, a necessary prerequisite for master racedom.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 04, 2016, 10:16:07 PM
Quote from: vdeane on May 27, 2016, 01:16:20 PM
Energy, incidentally enough, is actually the easiest challenge to solve. Just put up a bunch of solar panels in places like Death Valley and the Sahara. Raw materials we might be able to supplement with asteroids, but it's quite expensive.
Iiiiit's not nearly as simple as you make it sound. As great as it is to put solar generation in places with lots of sunlight, there remain two non-trivial problems:
1) Transmitting that electricity from where it is generated to where it is used
2) Having sufficient electricity storage capacity to account for the fact that the profile of when the electricity is generated and when it is used will not match.
1. We already figured that out with the powerplants we have now. You build transmission lines or co-op the ones already existing. When you're moving megawatts of power, big lines aren't that expensive based on the revenue generated.
2. That already happens most places. There will be other power, such as hydro, nuclear, some coal and gas plants.
QuoteItem number 1, in addition to being a costly endeavor, is also a political issue. Under this sort of scenario, countries like Libya, Algeria, etc. would effectively own Europe because Europe would be dependent on them for their electricity.
Don't the middle east countries already enjoy bargaining power over other countries due to oil? What difference if that influence is shifted to northern Africa from the middle east?
QuoteItem number 2 is the even bigger problem because the technology necessary to store the amount of electricity that would be required in a reasonable amount of space does not exist, and while it may exist at some point in the distant future it's not exactly around the corner.
If our advancements in technology suffice, instead of giant monolithic batteries dotting the landscape, it will simply be each house or business will house their own, for use, battery that charges during daylight hours to run services as needed. It will also give people a better understanding of what their homes electrical usage actually entails and where to cut out the waste when it means possibly blipping out of power late in the night.
There is no silver bullet for this - electricity is currently generated from a diverse variety of sources, and will continue to be generated from a diverse variety of sources even in a world where fossil fuels have been phased out.
Quote from: kalvado on May 30, 2016, 10:32:44 AM
There is just one point that makes sense: energy use for commute. Which is high for cars. Which is not really low for public transportation as well (significantly lower for rail though), especially when you take into account less than completely jammed operation outside rush hour, and mostly empty return trips. But one thing public transportation (rather system workable with public transportation) does - it reduces average commute distance with high density development neat subway route.
There is a very good point here, though, that efficiency in transportation can be achieved not only by making our vehicles use less energy to travel the same distance, but also by planning our built environment so as to reduce the necessary distance for routine trips. Greater density is one way of going about this but another is to hack away at the postwar sprawl staples of cul-de-sacs everywhere and single use zoning.
No neighborhood should ever have any dead end streets unless either:
A) they are stub ends awaiting future extension as the neighborhood grows
B) they are dictated by geography, such as a street dead ending at the edge of a body of water or near a hill that is too steep for a car to traverse.
C) The resulting lack of street connectivity is compensated for by other functional benefits, e.g. a street dead ending at the edge of a freeway or expressway in order to maintain controlled access.
The reason why is simple: dead end streets require people who live on them to take a circuitous route to get anywhere that isn't in the one direction the street goes. A better connected grid reduces travel distances, and by virtue of doing so makes walking or biking more practical. It also reduces congestion on arterials by allowing local traffic to pass through neighborhoods.
As for single use zoning, this is a problem because when you live in a place where everywhere within a couple miles of you is legally only allowed to contain houses, you need to travel extra distance to get anywhere that isn't someone else's house. Rather than just building a subdivision full of houses, put a grocery store in there so the people who live there can go shopping without having to travel too far. Zone for mixed use.
Incidentally, this even worked as an effective congestion reduction strategy in SimCity. A couple commercial or industrial tiles scattered around your residential zones and sometimes Sims would complete their trips without ever even using the road because they'd find the zone they needed right next door.
[/quote]
Quote from: Sykotyk on June 06, 2016, 03:28:49 PM
1. We already figured that out with the powerplants we have now. You build transmission lines or co-op the ones already existing. When you're moving megawatts of power, big lines aren't that expensive based on the revenue generated.
Which much easier to say than actually do. You hit some funny limits, like speed of light being too slow. Things may be doable, but complexity would be comparable to going from rural roads with at-grade crossings, to 6-level interstate interchanges.
Nome batteries are probably a pipe dream. Especially when ramping things up to 10's millions pieces Li is not going to work; sulfur may be interesting - but technology is really in early stages.
I'd use rioters disrupting surface traffic to advocate for more grade-separated transit systems.
When Westlake Park in Downtown Seattle was used by Occupy Seattle in 2011, the whole area had to be cordoned off by police and generally messed traffic up a bit. The only thing left relatively unchanged was the bus tunnel (which also serves light rail), which simply shut down the station at Westlake Park and had non-stop service through there. Other buses on the surface were caught in terrible traffic, or were unable to move at all because of the lack of good trolleybus wire in downtown.
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 06, 2016, 12:44:24 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 06, 2016, 12:13:14 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 06, 2016, 11:57:12 AM
Funny "Black Lives Matter" should be mentioned, I saw someone yesterday wearing a shirt that said "Black Lives Matter" who was to be my uber passenger, and when I seen that shirt I cancelled the ride and took off like a bat out of hell, I don't need that trouble.
Between boycotting movie theaters for running pro-mass-transit PSAs and denying rides based on customers' t-shirt slogans, you're starting to come off as a bit of an alarmist. What sort of "trouble" are you sparing yourself?
What do you mean? I'm not troubled by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, I will admit I overreacted to that Ontario government PSA, it just made me upset when I saw it.
As for "Black Lives Matter", citing information on this that is factual generally gets you called the R word. Let me put it bluntly, although no black passenger has ever threatened me, I've picked up six black passengers so far with my time with Uber, and four out of six of them disrespect my vehicle by eating in the vehicle and causing a mess, and they have a sort of entitlement mentality with my experience. The car needs to be kept spotless as any dirt can give you lower ratings by future passengers, and too many low ratings and uber will deactivate you.
In NYC, it's common knowledge that it's difficult for a black man to hail a cab. One might first call it racism, but consider where most NYC taxi drivers are from, a good portion of them are immigrants from African countries themselves. NYC cabbies with experience have noticed that black passengers are more highly likely to try and "bolt" after the cab ride to avoid paying the fare, or to try robbing the driver (Uber actually eliminates both of these issues with its system) obviously something happens with the cab drivers with a prior experience of picking up a black passenger that causes this to happen. There's plenty of evidence about this, google it if you don't believe me.
When you look at cities that actually publicize racial statistics on crime, it backs up the unfortunate notion that many perceive as racism. The real questions that should be asked is why are these crime stats the way they are. I'm trying to be rational about the whole thing, but I know posting this will seem like I'm walking on eggshells.
You tell me what kind of trouble. You're the one that said "I don't need that trouble" regarding anyone in a "Black Lives Matter" t-shirt.
(Are there Unitarian Universalist churches in Canada? The docile elderly hippies that seem to dominate the ones here hang the "black lives matter" banner on every church. Exceedingly polite bunch.)
OK, let's say you're not being racist. Factually, as you put it, you are admitting to discriminating on the basis of race. I don't know how it works in Canada, but that in the United States is grounds to bring you up on charges.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 06, 2016, 04:05:40 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 06, 2016, 12:44:24 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 06, 2016, 12:13:14 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 06, 2016, 11:57:12 AM
Funny "Black Lives Matter" should be mentioned, I saw someone yesterday wearing a shirt that said "Black Lives Matter" who was to be my uber passenger, and when I seen that shirt I cancelled the ride and took off like a bat out of hell, I don't need that trouble.
Between boycotting movie theaters for running pro-mass-transit PSAs and denying rides based on customers' t-shirt slogans, you're starting to come off as a bit of an alarmist. What sort of "trouble" are you sparing yourself?
What do you mean? I'm not troubled by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, I will admit I overreacted to that Ontario government PSA, it just made me upset when I saw it.
As for "Black Lives Matter", citing information on this that is factual generally gets you called the R word. Let me put it bluntly, although no black passenger has ever threatened me, I've picked up six black passengers so far with my time with Uber, and four out of six of them disrespect my vehicle by eating in the vehicle and causing a mess, and they have a sort of entitlement mentality with my experience. The car needs to be kept spotless as any dirt can give you lower ratings by future passengers, and too many low ratings and uber will deactivate you.
In NYC, it's common knowledge that it's difficult for a black man to hail a cab. One might first call it racism, but consider where most NYC taxi drivers are from, a good portion of them are immigrants from African countries themselves. NYC cabbies with experience have noticed that black passengers are more highly likely to try and "bolt" after the cab ride to avoid paying the fare, or to try robbing the driver (Uber actually eliminates both of these issues with its system) obviously something happens with the cab drivers with a prior experience of picking up a black passenger that causes this to happen. There's plenty of evidence about this, google it if you don't believe me.
When you look at cities that actually publicize racial statistics on crime, it backs up the unfortunate notion that many perceive as racism. The real questions that should be asked is why are these crime stats the way they are. I'm trying to be rational about the whole thing, but I know posting this will seem like I'm walking on eggshells.
You tell me what kind of trouble. You're the one that said "I don't need that trouble" regarding anyone in a "Black Lives Matter" t-shirt.
(Are there Unitarian Universalist churches in Canada? The docile elderly hippies that seem to dominate the ones here hang the "black lives matter" banner on every church. Exceedingly polite bunch.)
OK, let's say you're not being racist. Factually, as you put it, you are admitting to discriminating on the basis of race. I don't know how it works in Canada, but that in the United States is grounds to bring you up on charges.
The problem here is that you are assuming the person I cancelled the ride on was Black. Fact was, if race is important, he was an asian but he sort of looked like a thug, with a bandana on. That is the trouble I do not need, and if my safety feels threatened, no matter if the passenger is white, black, or whatever, I should have the right to cancel a ride.
If you are saying that taxi drivers should be charged with hate crimes, I'm not going to say discrimination is good. The point I'm getting at, is that these taxi drivers, some who are BLACK THEMSELVES from AFRICAN COUNTRIES start to avoid black passengers because of problems they have had with black passengers in the past. The man who drives the yellow cab in NYC is not going to be allowed to have Mr. Glock next to him in the front seat, but yet if the person he picks up is a criminal and wants to carry Mr. Glock, well there's no stopping him. The yellow cabbie has absolutely no way to defend himself if he's going to be robbed, and statistically, but unfortunately these kinds of homicides against taxi drivers happen with black men as the perpetrators, this is why the cabbies discriminate, because they don't want to be in a dangerous situation themselves.
As for hippies....oh boy, I'm surprised you see them as the good guys. I'm not going to go off on a tangent about hippies, but let's just summarize it simply, in the Summer of 1969, the greatest generation who fought in World War II, their achievements put a man on the moon that summer, but what did the hippies do....oh yeah, they got high and drunk in Woodstock. When these hippies couldn't get real jobs, they simply stayed in college forever until they could become the "lunatic professors" we see today that these universities are notorious for.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 06, 2016, 04:35:17 PM
I get the feeling that Reagan is looking up from his current sweltering abode and nodding in approval of a couple of posts in this thread.
The Greatest Generation (TM) got to defend liberty and justice against the enemies of humanity!
All the hippy generation got to defend was an odious corrupt regime that the Greatest Generation should never have made an alliance with.
Are we ready to lock this thread yet?
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 06, 2016, 04:33:12 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 06, 2016, 04:05:40 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 06, 2016, 12:44:24 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 06, 2016, 12:13:14 PM
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 06, 2016, 11:57:12 AM
Funny "Black Lives Matter" should be mentioned, I saw someone yesterday wearing a shirt that said "Black Lives Matter" who was to be my uber passenger, and when I seen that shirt I cancelled the ride and took off like a bat out of hell, I don't need that trouble.
Between boycotting movie theaters for running pro-mass-transit PSAs and denying rides based on customers' t-shirt slogans, you're starting to come off as a bit of an alarmist. What sort of "trouble" are you sparing yourself?
What do you mean? I'm not troubled by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, I will admit I overreacted to that Ontario government PSA, it just made me upset when I saw it.
As for "Black Lives Matter", citing information on this that is factual generally gets you called the R word. Let me put it bluntly, although no black passenger has ever threatened me, I've picked up six black passengers so far with my time with Uber, and four out of six of them disrespect my vehicle by eating in the vehicle and causing a mess, and they have a sort of entitlement mentality with my experience. The car needs to be kept spotless as any dirt can give you lower ratings by future passengers, and too many low ratings and uber will deactivate you.
In NYC, it's common knowledge that it's difficult for a black man to hail a cab. One might first call it racism, but consider where most NYC taxi drivers are from, a good portion of them are immigrants from African countries themselves. NYC cabbies with experience have noticed that black passengers are more highly likely to try and "bolt" after the cab ride to avoid paying the fare, or to try robbing the driver (Uber actually eliminates both of these issues with its system) obviously something happens with the cab drivers with a prior experience of picking up a black passenger that causes this to happen. There's plenty of evidence about this, google it if you don't believe me.
When you look at cities that actually publicize racial statistics on crime, it backs up the unfortunate notion that many perceive as racism. The real questions that should be asked is why are these crime stats the way they are. I'm trying to be rational about the whole thing, but I know posting this will seem like I'm walking on eggshells.
You tell me what kind of trouble. You're the one that said "I don't need that trouble" regarding anyone in a "Black Lives Matter" t-shirt.
(Are there Unitarian Universalist churches in Canada? The docile elderly hippies that seem to dominate the ones here hang the "black lives matter" banner on every church. Exceedingly polite bunch.)
OK, let's say you're not being racist. Factually, as you put it, you are admitting to discriminating on the basis of race. I don't know how it works in Canada, but that in the United States is grounds to bring you up on charges.
The problem here is that you are assuming the person I cancelled the ride on was Black. Fact was, if race is important, he was an asian but he sort of looked like a thug, with a bandana on. That is the trouble I do not need, and if my safety feels threatened, no matter if the passenger is white, black, or whatever, I should have the right to cancel a ride.
If you are saying that taxi drivers should be charged with hate crimes, I'm not going to say discrimination is good. The point I'm getting at, is that these taxi drivers, some who are BLACK THEMSELVES from AFRICAN COUNTRIES start to avoid black passengers because of problems they have had with black passengers in the past. The man who drives the yellow cab in NYC is not going to be allowed to have Mr. Glock next to him in the front seat, but yet if the person he picks up is a criminal and wants to carry Mr. Glock, well there's no stopping him. The yellow cabbie has absolutely no way to defend himself if he's going to be robbed, and statistically, but unfortunately these kinds of homicides against taxi drivers happen with black men as the perpetrators, this is why the cabbies discriminate, because they don't want to be in a dangerous situation themselves.
As for hippies....oh boy, I'm surprised you see them as the good guys. I'm not going to go off on a tangent about hippies, but let's just summarize it simply, in the Summer of 1969, the greatest generation who fought in World War II, their achievements put a man on the moon that summer, but what did the hippies do....oh yeah, they got high and drunk in Woodstock. When these hippies couldn't get real jobs, they simply stayed in college forever until they could become the "lunatic professors" we see today that these universities are notorious for.
You went on at length about the poor behavior of black people.
I referred to discrimination in business on the basis of race, based upon your going on at length about the undesirability of picking up black customers. In the United States, this is a serious violation of federal law, not simply a "hate crime."
The "hippies" I'm talking about are simply old liberal-leaning retirees that listen to folk music and go bird-watching. Again, we're talking about whether a reasonable person should expect disruptive behavior from these polite 70-somethings in one's car, not most of what you described.