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.
That grey blob on the far right of the "garbage" picture is my old high school! Your comment sums up the area nicely.
Because Omaha sucks doesn't it? Well? I love everything about Omaha, every part every house everything, and it greatly agitates me when you and others insult my home.
Because Omaha sucks doesn't it? Well? I love everything about Omaha, every part every house everything, and it greatly agitates me when you and others insult my home.
Wow! Settle down there, buckaroo! I like a large chunk of Omaha, with the exception of anything that resembles that very last image I posted, where some people can walk to a park or a school, but that's it. Urban planners should have created some sort of faux-downtown near the center of that image with a bank, restaurant, pharmacy, church, etc. so that people could be nearer to much more than just other houses.
Urban planners should have created some sort of faux-downtown near the center of that image with a bank, restaurant, pharmacy, church, etc. so that people could be nearer to much more than just other houses.
DH grew up on the west side of UNO. He lived as urban a lifestyle as anyone else in a large city (save maybe NYC, he lived in a SF house, not a tenement). He attended Central High, which was the Nebraska Territorial Capitol building (for those who say Omaha has no history). However, his family did not, even in the 1950s, walk to the local grocery store to shop for a family of 5. That is just not practical.
UNO used to be the University of Omaha, which was a publicly funded municipal college since 1931. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univers...raska_at_Omaha
At the time, Omaha's population was 214,000, with a much smaller metro area as well. What other city of that size had/has a publicly funded university. Both of DH's brothers graduated from there.
In regards to the obesity "epidemic", a term coined by the media, the research actually shows higher rates of obestiy in the inner cities than in the suburbs.
Quote:
Residents in the sprawling cul-de-sacs of the last image all have to hop into their vehicles (which would consist of mostly gas-guzzling minivans and SUVs and very few hybrids, I would presume),
Now really, that is unfair to the good people of Omaha. They are as likely to buy hybrids as the guy in Scranton, I would think. My brother in law, who actually lives near the "sprawl" picture, owns two Lexuses (or is it Lexi?).
Socialist? Not quite. Environmentally conscious and responsible? Perhaps. In that final image, how many residents of those hundreds of tract-homes do you feel could be able to safely walk to many destinations, including schools, workplaces, houses of worship, banks, grocery stores, restaurants, etc.? Probably none at all. In the first ten images, the orderly-grid shaped design and sidewalks lining every streets makes it quite easy to access most conveniences on either foot or bike. Residents in the sprawling cul-de-sacs of the last image all have to hop into their vehicles (which would consist of mostly gas-guzzling minivans and SUVs and very few hybrids, I would presume), and drive everywhere for everything, increasing our nation's dependency upon foreign fossil fuels. Those who live in the more ecologically-responsible walkable neighborhoods near to the university in the prior ten images can then walk to their local grocery store where they will pay progressively higher prices for their poultry, produce, and pickles spawned by high gas prices, which have been soaring as at least an indirect result of all of their suburban counterparts who refuse to walk or bike to anything due either to their own laziness, isolation, or poor urban planning of their communities.
Would our nation be nearly 50% obese if everyone could walk at least a half-hour to an hour daily to access their basic needs? No. Would our health care industry be so heavily burdened with obesity-related cases? No. Would our nation be at the mercy of terrorist-friendly foreign nations if not for our incessant thirst for crude oil? No. Would our gas prices be soaring so astronomically if everyone who lived in neighborhoods such as the last image I snapped moved closer to their needs so that they could drive less? No.
I suppose I do lean towards socialism, as I believe in doing what is "best for the majority." I constantly analyze how each and every decision I make either directly or indirectly impacts the lives of those around me. On Thursdays (including very soon today), I trek to Wilkes-Barre, my area's second regional hub city, in order to spend roughly $20 purchasing local produce, baked goods, and other wares from an independent farmers' market. I know that the $10 I put into the pocket of one farmer will stay in the local community. He may then decide to come to my employer and purchase something from me, a sales specialist, with the money he obtained from me and my fellow attendees of the market. I will earn a commission on that, which I will then use to go patronize a mom-and-pop restaurant with. The owners of that restaurant will then put a portion of their proceeds into sponsoring my son's Little League team. The Little League team will have a hot dog and burger sale at one of their games in which they will raise $500 to donate to the local chapter of the American Cancer Society. That $500 goes to help a financially-disadvantaged local cancer patient commute to nearby New York City or Philadelphia for life saving chemotherapy treatments. The woman who is receiving those treatments happens to be the wife of the farmer whom I patronized at the farmer's market in Wilkes-Barre.
Perhaps I'm just too rational. I just feel as if minimizing our carbon footprints and spending an extra few seconds before even making a relatively minor decision could have an impressive impact overall on making this world a better place to live.
Whether or not the neighborhood blocks are arranged in perfect little rectangles or if they are curvey and maze-like has nothing to do with obesity, carbon footprint, or community. It does have a lot to do with making the neighborhood quiet, safe for kids playing in the street (if it's a cul de sac), and physically attractive-- looking down a street and seeing nothing but that same strip of road go on forever is quite ugly; having streets that dead end and curve goes a long way to promoting views of vegetation all around once the trees mature. It goes a long way to blocking out noise. If you were observant you would notice a couple of other things: most neighborhoods like that with a maze of streets (but still surrounded by a perfect 1x1 mile grid of arterial roads) do in fact have at least 1 or two collector streets approximately at the half mile grid. The 1x1 mile grid system is in my experience that hardest thing for easterners to "get" about the west and the midwest. Land in the west in midwest is surveyed in a completely different way than in the northeast.
You'd notice that in the middle of the 1x1 mile grid full of a maze of neighborhood roads, that's usually where you'll find elementary schools and sometimes churches-- kept strategically away from major roads so kids who live in the neighborhood can cross the street easily and walk to school-- or to the bus stop-- also centrally located in the middle of the grid. You'll also notice that you have a choice as to where in the grid to live. If you live in center, you are convenient to the local elementary school, but far from getting out of the neighborhood. But you can live in a street right off or one block away from the entrance to the neighborhood (which in quality cities have a stop light with a pedestrian grade intersection to get across the major street... even linking into another neighborhood). You'd also observe that there is an invention known as the bicycle, that makes travelling a mile, two, three, even 5 miles an easy, leisurely ride when you live in a flat city. The bicycle is one of the most fuel efficient method of land transportation known to man; and it's also the most energy efficient in terms of calories burned per mile. I've bicycled hours and hours going 20, 30, 40, 50 miles in neighborhoods in Phoenix that look no different from those squigly lines inside the 1x1 mile boxes picture of Omaha you showed. You'd also notice that sidewalks are pretty much standard in most gridded-out cities in the midwest and west.
I love everything about Omaha, every part every house everything, and it greatly agitates me when you and others insult my home.
Then get used to a lifetime of misery. Not everyone is going to love your home. It sounds like you need to step back, take a deep breath and put things into perspective. If your happiness is dependent upon people always agreeing with you, then you're headed for a meltdown at some point. Actually it looks like you've already had a few meltdowns in this forum. If you really want people to take you seriously, lighten up and don't take it so personally when people say they don't like the town where you live. You'll win over a lot more people by being level-headed and mature rather than throwing childish tantrums.
Something tells me this isn't the kind of stuff ScranBarre was talking about. I think SB is an advocate for so-called "smart growth," multiple-use planned unit developments, etc. Looking at the links you provided, there's nothing but typical late-20th century, suburban sprawly, single-use, automobile-oriented (and may I call it) mess.
I'm with SWB on street networks too. Sure it's possible to walk down stick-and-lollipop streets within a 1-sq-mile area. But it's not the type of built environment that makes walking an easy and efficient mode, or easy for someone unfamiliar with the random assortment of curving no-outlet streets in any given 1-sq mile block, to navigate. Some streets connect to others, some don't. Some streets start off going west, then curve north. Blocks can be enormous, so if you want to just cross over to the next street, you may have to walk 1/2 mile to get to a cross-street that will take you there, etc. And not all streets lead to the "main roads" that bound the 1-sq-mi superblock. And the "main roads" may or may not have sidewalks or crosswalks (Center Road in the example posted by Go Ne only has a sidewalk on one side of the street and no striped crosswalks). Then when you get to the giant shopping center that houses the grocery store, the store isn't near the street. It's at the back of a giant sea of parking. It would be much easier to walk to a store that's at the end of the block, on a street which connects to many other streets in the neighborhood. I think it's great that some people walk/cycle in places like Phoenix. But I think Joe Average is less likely to walk or cycle in an environment like the one ScanBarre posted, than in a "main street" suburb.
Interconnected street networks are generally the layouts do less to discourage walking or cycling. A "grid" doesn't have to be endless straight streets, nor do the blocks in the "grid" have to be rectangular. Just connecting the streets, having reasonably sized blocks (intersection every 400' or less) and of course providing sidewalks and bike lanes make all the difference in the world.
Also, a rectangular grid environment can be enhanced to improve aesthetics and safety. Offsetting the grid occasionally at intersections provides visual termination and requires a jog movement to slow traffic. Traffic calming measures such as neckdowns, raised ped crossings, chicanes, etc. also increase safety.
Some interesting books on these topics include Anton Nelessen's "Visions of a New American Dream," Peter Calthorpe's "The Next American Metropolis," and Newman & Kenworthy's "Sustainability and Cities," among other titles in the "new urbanism" lexicon.
Some people like stick-and-lollipop streets. I don't like them at all.
Edit: I'm not saying anything for or against Omaha or Scranton in this post. Just general commentary on urban design as it could apply anywhere.
Geeze.. i thought this thread was dead already..
seven years later..
lala scranton is better.. nahhh omaha this and that gahhhhhhh
omaha is bigger
scranton is smaller
how can you compare? what the hell i dont understand
we should compare scranton with a city its size and same with omaha!
Geeze.. i thought this thread was dead already..
seven years later..
lala scranton is better.. nahhh omaha this and that gahhhhhhh
omaha is bigger
scranton is smaller
how can you compare? what the hell i dont understand
we should compare scranton with a city its size and same with omaha!
I agree, I already said that america voted scranton.. So we should let this die..
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.
