Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's the tourist factor built in to any discussion of cities other people don't actually live in--that is, experience life in--so complaints about transportation and centralization are natural. I get that. The only thing new-ish is regular, open discussion with people thousands of miles away.
There's the tourist factor built in to any discussion of cities other people don't actually live in--that is, experience life in--so complaints about transportation and centralization are natural. I get that. The only thing new-ish is regular, open discussion with people thousands of miles away.
My point is topics like these are more often than not brought up by isolated suburbanites living anywhere from 1-3 hours from their respective city's core. Only they would have an issue with our hatrid/dislike towards the automobile because they basically need one for survival. Just look what cars did to our downtowns from the 50's-70's (hello urban renewal), and the answer should be clear as day.
My point is topics like these are more often than not brought up by isolated suburbanites living anywhere from 1-3 hours from their respective city's core. Only they would have an issue with our hatrid/dislike towards the automobile because they basically need one for survival. Just look what cars did to our downtowns from the 50's-70's (hello urban renewal), and the answer should be clear as day.
But how often do you believe these isolated suburbanites need to go to their respective city's core?
No social history is "clear as day," and that's the problem with much discussion on this topic. Human migration isn't something anyone's particular ideals can (or should) control. Shall we argue what centralized cities have historically "done" to small towns? There is no argument. It's pointless.
A texan trying to get chicagoans and l.a. ers to fight.
I'm not a Texan at all. My username is a throwback to when I was considering moving there when I first joined the forum. I never bothered to change it.
I'm actually from the Chicago suburbs, have lived in some small towns for college, and personally find that the LA area blows me away in a way that Chicago doesn't. Even though apparently for many, who feel the opposite.
Thats not to say that I think the grass is greener on the other side, I like the specific area I live in (Oak Park) but find that the LA area is just amazing, and don't understand why it doesn't get the respect it deserves.
My point is topics like these are more often than not brought up by isolated suburbanites living anywhere from 1-3 hours from their respective city's core. Only they would have an issue with our hatrid/dislike towards the automobile because they basically need one for survival. Just look what cars did to our downtowns from the 50's-70's (hello urban renewal), and the answer should be clear as day.
I don't mind public transportation at all. I don't live 1-3 hours at all from my respective city core. I however do like exploring what an entire region has to offer. And that rarely is possible by public transportation alone.
And since the LA/Socal area has more things to do (from cultural attractions and neighborhoods to outdoor activities) I just don't understand why people write off a city as lame because they don't have a subway taking them everywhere. Or that Universal City is not right next to the Santa Monica pier.
I don't mind public transportation at all. I don't live 1-3 hours at all from my respective city core. I however do like exploring what an entire region has to offer. And that rarely is possible by public transportation alone.
And since the LA/Socal area has more things to do (from cultural attractions and neighborhoods to outdoor activities) I just don't understand why people write off a city as lame because they don't have a subway taking them everywhere. Or that Universal City is not right next to the Santa Monica pier.
This is basically the premise of the thread. I think people are holding on a little too tight to when you used the word fad to describe centralized cities with good public transit. I think people need to let go of that little tidbit and understand what you were trying to say. And what you were trying to say is basically what I highlighted in red for everyone to see, and I agree with what you said. If a place is entertaining, it's entertaining regardless of it's walk ability and public transit options. Great public transit and walk-ability are just the bonus.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
