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.
Yeah, people on this site really suck at getting the point. Obviously, this dude is just wondering why density and public transit trump all else in deciding if a city is good. Density/public transit is icing on the cake. I'll live in Houston over Cleveland becuase there just more there regardless of how easy it is for me to walk to the store in Cleveland.
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.
This.
I take public transit to and from work 5 days a week, but this hits the nail on the head, imo.
The "fad" is the dominance of the auto that has risen but is now falling in American cities in the past 50 years. Normalcy in an urban area is mobility options beyond the automobile, i.e., public transportation including trains, taxis and buses, and bountiful pedestrian access. American cities are now regaining what had been lost during the urban "renewal" and freeway building surge of the 60s and 70s.
jesus christ, people. Pull your heads out of jane jacobs's dead ass!
Seriously, though, this really does deserve a discussion that respects nuance and subtlety. Nothing is as cut and dry as many would like to believe. We live in an era of hypercapitalism and unless you challenge that first, and realize how much even your own beliefs--no matter how niche--have been sold to you, you're not going to move past being a pawn in a huge unsustainable machine.
Yes, driving and cars are bad for the environment. But, they have been undeniably beneficial to the quality of life and earning potential of the average person. Cars provide unparalleled access to opportunities, and have allowed for economic activities that could never be possible with public transit.
Of course, providing only for the automobile can be devastating to those on the furthest margins who cannot afford to drive, but on the whole the populations of the world have become more prosperous as cars and their requisite infrastructure have become more widespread.
Now we know for sure that this can't be sustained (but if energy were free you can be damn sure we'd have built stacked suburbs to the moon by now...), but we need to be very very smart about how go about preparing for a less car-heavy future. Unless we become drastically less greedy, it's obvious that we will slip slowly backward in time... more sustainable from an ecological perspective but much less equitable economically.
Those who think the world will look like oslo or amsterdam or copenhagen are severely mistaken... that cannot be sustained beyond a wealthy western country's privileged borders. A real global economy is messy and extensive energy use has only made things less messy for the average person. If you don't believe me, hop in a time machine back to Victorian London or NYC. Or, for that matter, visit any of the countries outside of europe or Japan that have low per-capita energy consumption rates.
It's clear that unless we think about this realistically and not like pretentious yuppies that declining cheap energy (and, by necessity, consumption) will be overall a mostly very bad thing for the average earthling.
Last edited by dweebo2220; 03-31-2011 at 10:31 PM..
just thought I should mention that of course I realize that if we fail to collectively reduce our pollution (consumption) we will all be in for a world of hurt much more drastic than simply not being able to drive.
I just think that we need to acknowledge that our world is full of billions whose lives will get worse as we make that reduction unless we acknowledge this fact and plan accordingly (i.e. become less selfish and maybe, gasp! less capitalist).
“The production of too many useful things results in too many useless people.” - Karl Marx
He's right. Thanks to all of our useful technological advancements and increased qualities of life and greater consumption we have billions teetering on the edge of uselessness.
I think what it all comes down to is basically centrally located convenience. Yes, public transportation is very important, absolutely, but do you think its simply trendy in the 2000s to simply be so anti-car?
Do you think that it is more of a novelty to judge cities based on their public transportation and centralization than what the city and surrounding area actually have to see and do? I mean seriously.
I don't want this to turn into another LA versus Chicago thread. But the only thing I can think of, is that people are simply so extremely pro centralized and anti-driving to the extreme.
It does seem in the world outside of online forums, its not nearly so intense, but even still, people seem to feel as if they have to drive somewhere its not worth going to.
I honestly don't think it's a trend and I can't see this slowing down or stopping anytime soon. People are realizing (now) that without constant public transport (trains, cabs, etc.) you'll NEED a car and at times, I believe, that'll be a hassle. It's great to live in a city that gives you an option but in a city like L.A. you really don't have that option. It's own a car or you're not getting there.
I don't think people should base their judgment solely off of public transport, but for some (like me, who are accustomed to public transportation) it's definitely a factor we have to consider. Not all though, I'm just a city guy so it's a necessity for me. I know how to drive but I don't because I don't have to.
While I was in L.A. I felt like. . .I don't know. It was cool but at times we felt like we were in a little town, meaning not the 2nd largest city in USA (but before I go on this is just how I felt, I mean no harm!). We stayed at the Beverly Hilton and ate at Mr Chow one night and the walk was so dead. It was only around 9 or 10 on a Saturday and it was dead in that area. The natives or visitors had their cars valeted, and we just walked back to the hotel, after we ate. Around 10-12 blocks so it wasn't bad.
I think that's why we're different and people can appreciate that. There's nothing wrong with owning a car and some just don't want to have another expense.
But to answer your question. . . I don't think you should base your opinion on cities based off transportation alone. But at some point (for some) that's a major breaker.
I'd probably prefer SF to Chicago. Prefer Chicago over L.A. and Philly over all of those, If I wasn't from NY. It's subjective and how we were raised in a way.
jesus christ, people. Pull your heads out of jane jacobs's dead ass!
Seriously, though, this really does deserve a discussion that respects nuance and subtlety. Nothing is as cut and dry as many would like to believe. We live in an era of hypercapitalism and unless you challenge that first, and realize how much even your own beliefs--no matter how niche--have been sold to you, you're not going to move past being a pawn in a huge unsustainable machine.
Yes, driving and cars are bad for the environment. But, they have been undeniably beneficial to the quality of life and earning potential of the average person. Cars provide unparalleled access to opportunities, and have allowed for economic activities that could never be possible with public transit.
Of course, providing only for the automobile can be devastating to those on the furthest margins who cannot afford to drive, but on the whole the populations of the world have become more prosperous as cars and their requisite infrastructure have become more widespread.
Now we know for sure that this can't be sustained (but if energy were free you can be damn sure we'd have built stacked suburbs to the moon by now...), but we need to be very very smart about how go about preparing for a less car-heavy future. Unless we become drastically less greedy, it's obvious that we will slip slowly backward in time... more sustainable from an ecological perspective but much less equitable economically.
Those who think the world will look like oslo or amsterdam or copenhagen are severely mistaken... that cannot be sustained beyond a wealthy western country's privileged borders. A real global economy is messy and extensive energy use has only made things less messy for the average person. If you don't believe me, hop in a time machine back to Victorian London or NYC. Or, for that matter, visit any of the countries outside of europe or Japan that have low per-capita energy consumption rates.
It's clear that unless we think about this realistically and not like pretentious yuppies that declining cheap energy (and, by necessity, consumption) will be overall a mostly very bad thing for the average earthling.
I honestly don't think it's a trend and I can't see this slowing down or stopping anytime soon. People are realizing (now) that without constant public transport (trains, cabs, etc.) you'll NEED a car and at times, I believe, that'll be a hassle. It's great to live in a city that gives you an option but in a city like L.A. you really don't have that option. It's own a car or you're not getting there.
I don't think people should base their judgment solely off of public transport, but for some (like me, who are accustomed to public transportation) it's definitely a factor we have to consider. Not all though, I'm just a city guy so it's a necessity for me. I know how to drive but I don't because I don't have to.
While I was in L.A. I felt like. . .I don't know. It was cool but at times we felt like we were in a little town, meaning not the 2nd largest city in USA (but before I go on this is just how I felt, I mean no harm!). We stayed at the Beverly Hilton and ate at Mr Chow one night and the walk was so dead. It was only around 9 or 10 on a Saturday and it was dead in that area. The natives or visitors had their cars valeted, and we just walked back to the hotel, after we ate. Around 10-12 blocks so it wasn't bad.
I think that's why we're different and people can appreciate that. There's nothing wrong with owning a car and some just don't want to have another expense.
But to answer your question. . . I don't think you should base your opinion on cities based off transportation alone. But at some point (for some) that's a major breaker.
I'd probably prefer SF to Chicago. Prefer Chicago over L.A. and Philly over all of those, If I wasn't from NY. It's subjective and how we were raised in a way.
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.
