Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-30-2011, 08:53 PM
 
5,959 posts, read 13,074,748 times
Reputation: 4862

Advertisements

Back when I was younger in the 80s and 90s, LA was largely considered to be a more exciting, dynamic, hip city than Chicago. Even without all the public transportation improvements in LA, and other great attractions in addition to everything else built in the last 20 years (IE: Getty Center) so many on online forums, think Chicago is a "real city", a better, or more "urban city"

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?

People were no so anti-driving as they were 15-20 years ago as they are now. 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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-30-2011, 09:08 PM
 
606 posts, read 353,335 times
Reputation: 770
I don't think it's a fad unless gas prices significantly decrease, or we finally manage to use an alternative source of energy (or if gas miraculously becomes less harmful to the environment).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2011, 09:28 PM
 
152 posts, read 249,797 times
Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il? View Post
Back when I was younger in the 80s and 90s, LA was largely considered to be a more exciting, dynamic, hip city than Chicago. Even without all the public transportation improvements in LA, and other great attractions in addition to everything else built in the last 20 years (IE: Getty Center) so many on online forums, think Chicago is a "real city", a better, or more "urban city"

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?

People were no so anti-driving as they were 15-20 years ago as they are now. 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.
Ha ha. First off, there were less cars 15 years ago then today. Second gas was much cheaper. Third, every major, established world class city like London, Paris or Tokyo simply depends on its public transportation to move the masses.
No, focus on public transportation is not a fad but simply a necesssity, once cities reach certain critical mass of population density which LA has accomplished succesfully. The key is not the city population size but rather its population density, so Atlanta or Dallas can still get away with this while Chicago or SF can't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2011, 09:38 PM
 
940 posts, read 2,022,189 times
Reputation: 742
Let's face it, none of our american cities are sustainable by any measure. LA has less greenhouse gas emissions per capita than Chicago even despite the difference in VMT per capita because it's so energy intensive to heat and cool chicago.

That's not to say LA is sustainable. Nowhere in the US is really sustainable. We're so heavily reliant on fossil fuels for everything we do, eat, consume that cars are only a small part of the problem. The average manhattanite still has a much larger ecological footprint than the average poor american just by virtue of being so wealthy and consuming so much (not to mention air travel). Until we tackle global consumerism and climate control, this whole trend toward "urban living" in the US can really just be reduced to a niche hobby for the young, wealthy, and childless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2011, 09:00 AM
 
14,256 posts, read 26,865,349 times
Reputation: 4565
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220 View Post
Let's face it, none of our american cities are sustainable by any measure. LA has less greenhouse gas emissions per capita than Chicago even despite the difference in VMT per capita because it's so energy intensive to heat and cool chicago.

That's not to say LA is sustainable. Nowhere in the US is really sustainable. We're so heavily reliant on fossil fuels for everything we do, eat, consume that cars are only a small part of the problem. The average manhattanite still has a much larger ecological footprint than the average poor american just by virtue of being so wealthy and consuming so much (not to mention air travel). Until we tackle global consumerism and climate control, this whole trend toward "urban living" in the US can really just be reduced to a niche hobby for the young, wealthy, and childless.
I agree, surely the polution we have today, can't solely be put on suburbanites. I'm young and childless, but not wealthy. Everyone thinks living in the burbs is greedy and selfish. Well, maybe if the city was cheaper more people would move. It's like, I know you live in the city, walk to your local coffeeshop everyday, and take public transit to work, and think you're freakin Captin Planet. Want a trophy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2011, 09:02 AM
 
864 posts, read 1,121,064 times
Reputation: 355
It's mostly city-data. Sure cities are trying to density and reduce oil dependency but most people in real life are not so ardent and pro desnsity/public transit that they sh*t on a city for not being as dense/walkable as another. Most people in real life care about JOBS, stuff to do/culture, markets and affordability more then anything else. Density/walkability/public transit/ car dependency is on icing on the cake for real people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2011, 09:06 AM
 
14,256 posts, read 26,865,349 times
Reputation: 4565
It's not a fad. I think it's a necessity in the sense that gas prices are getting higher, and we're running out of fuel. But many a people commute and don't use public transit all that much and live exciting lives. If you live in a sprawled city with a crapload to do, and you have a car, I don't see the problem. Do you have to drive EVERYWHERE to have fun? Outside of C-D, no one really judges cities based on public transit, walkability, and density alone. This is evidenced by the number migration trends, the number of tourist certain cities receive, and the number of surveys taken about which states are the most desirable to live in. People really aren't that ardent on public transit, denisty walkability. Honestly, the only cities that fit all 3 criteria, and are really targeted by tourist, are NYC, SF, and DC, the other HUGE tourist destinations are Orlando, LA, Miami, etc. BUT, this IS city-data. So it's pretty relevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2011, 09:59 AM
 
Location: Boston
1,082 posts, read 2,885,037 times
Reputation: 920
I think the idea of urban efficiency has become more widespread, whether it be economic, environmental, or transportation based. So it is a fad in the sense that it's a new way of looking at cities that has gained traction. But I don't think it's a fad in the sense that it will burn bright, then fade. Ideas about density, centralization, public transit, they are based upon some pretty solid theory.

As to the L.A. thing, I used to live there, and thought it was great, in part because of the car and backyard culture. Then I visited some cities in Asia and Europe, and was absolutely blown away by how much more was going on. I got the same vibe when I visited Boston and picked it for where I wanted to be in college. Today, L.A. is becoming a dense, more centralized, more transit accessible city. I never stopped loving L.A., but I love it so much more now than I did 20 years ago. I really can't speak to the comparisons with Chicago or elsewhere, but I do know that if we compare L.A. 2010 with L.A. 1985, 2010 wins easily.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2011, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
5,447 posts, read 5,678,312 times
Reputation: 6052
I think its the other way around. The car-oriented city was a mid 20th century fad starting from the end of WW2. Dense cities with "real" walkable cores have been build since the start of civilization. Look at how dense some of the old historic cities are anywhere in the world.. from Europe to China to Middle East. Its not just about convenience or preference - its about energy efficiency, land use efficiency/conservation, and effectiveness as a city. You can only defy the laws of nature for so long with unstastainable development and subsidies, but eventually all of those shenanigans are going to catch up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2011, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Cleveland
4,637 posts, read 4,945,167 times
Reputation: 5979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il? View Post
Back when I was younger in the 80s and 90s, LA was largely considered to be a more exciting, dynamic, hip city than Chicago. Even without all the public transportation improvements in LA, and other great attractions in addition to everything else built in the last 20 years (IE: Getty Center) so many on online forums, think Chicago is a "real city", a better, or more "urban city"

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?

People were no so anti-driving as they were 15-20 years ago as they are now. 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.
No. Europe's basically always been doing it this way, so it comes off as typical self-absorbed American ignorance to call it a fad.

There is a real cultural split here, but the people that fall on the side of the European way of thinking aren't going to suddenly go back to the other side in four years because it's a fad. Home brewing is a fad. Fixed-gear bikes are a fad. Having the geographical center of a city also be its social and intellectual center, instead of a warehouse for the poor and immoral, is anything but a fad.

Don't get me wrong, I loathe the snobbery some people of the European mentality have. I also understand the American suburban mentality and although it's not for me, I would never call it a fad. So yeah, neither one is a fad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:24 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top