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.
Why do you have to inflate your posts with so much blabber? Do think you will come off as more intelligent because of the word count? Keep it simple and to the point.
All the cities that you mentioned are primarly famous for their very old and extensive subways systems and of course there are other public transportation options supplementing them, including buses, streetcars, ferries, elevated and ground level light rail, however their subways provide the backbone to their transportation systems.
In all of your blabbery posts I have not seen a single convincing argument making elevated lines better than subways lines. Unless you consider providing shade a good argument. LOL
Blabber? The posts are on point and I write in specific detail because it's necessary to express the nuances. If you're considering the good points as blabber then there's not much to be done since I don't see how you distilled all of it into "providing shade." Perhaps you should consider arguing intelligently and with details even if you feel doing so is blabber-y.
There are some interesting points about old subways and old elevated lines--old elevated lines certainly were not as advantageous in most situations as subway lines in the mid-20th century. It seems like certain factors have made elevated lines advantageous (and have mitigated previous disadvantages) in more situations now than before, but this is mostly in the last two decades or so. That lack of advancement in technologies for elevated lines and the paranoia of the Cold War amongst developed countries with resources to build mass transit (consider how ridiculously deep the Eastern European subways are--add the possibility of use as a bomb shelter as another advantage of subways) did a good job of creating a moratorium on el development until recently.
I don't think it's a fluke that many big cities are opting to choose elevated lines more often now. The technology is there now, and it's once again viable. Chicago should be learning from this and adapting their system since they (inadvertently) kept the advantages of having the right-of-way already secured, an established ridership, historical and development continuity, and still usable infrastructure. NYC and LA don't have these, so the decision is easier for them, but what NYC and LA do isn't necessarily the most reasonable thing for Chicago to do--and it also doesn't preclude Chicago from doing what other cities have done.
Dementor is a pre-teen kid who gets on this forum from his mom's home in White Plains, New York. He spends his time visiting petting zoos, throwing temper tantrums when his mom tells him to practice his piano, and insulting people from the middle of the continent.
If he's not you, then you do a great impression. Now, do somebody people like!
Blabber? The posts are on point and I write in specific detail because it's necessary to express the nuances. If you're considering the good points as blabber then there's not much to be done since I don't see how you distilled all of it into "providing shade." Perhaps you should consider arguing intelligently and with details even if you feel doing so is blabber-y.
There are some interesting points about old subways and old elevated lines--old elevated lines certainly were not as advantageous in most situations as subway lines in the mid-20th century. It seems like certain factors have made elevated lines advantageous (and have mitigated previous disadvantages) in more situations now than before, but this is mostly in the last two decades or so. That lack of advancement in technologies for elevated lines and the paranoia of the Cold War amongst developed countries with resources to build mass transit (consider how ridiculously deep the Eastern European subways are--add the possibility of use as a bomb shelter as another advantage of subways) did a good job of creating a moratorium on el development until recently.
I don't think it's a fluke that many big cities are opting to choose elevated lines more often now. The technology is there now, and it's once again viable. Chicago should be learning from this and adapting their system since they (inadvertently) kept the advantages of having the right-of-way already secured, an established ridership, historical and development continuity, and still usable infrastructure. NYC and LA don't have these, so the decision is easier for them, but what NYC and LA do isn't necessarily the most reasonable thing for Chicago to do--and it also doesn't preclude Chicago from doing what other cities have done.
It won't let me rep you any higher, but that was a great post.
Little prairie dogs Can't do much harm alone so they always gang up. Anyone noticed how any thread related to Chicago has the same group of five or six Chicago posters
right dementor. you keep thinking that. you've been beaten like a rented mule by nearly anyone who converses w/ you, no matter their age, IQ or species. Just keep posting your bullsh/t so we can quietly laugh at your expense.
Well, I'll cop to that. Chances are the vast majority of posters on here are older than me! Sorry that it shows, I guess.
OyCrumbler-- you're a top-notch poster. Recently you've posted some of the most interesting stuff on here. Even if you're in preschool, your postings and thoughts are a credit to this forum.
Interesting! I guess I was referring to the type of setbacks seen in Manhattan, that give buildings the "wedding cake" look.
I am going to respectfully disagree with you here, too. Chicago's skyscrapers are more tightly packed than in New York. However, I should define my terms. By tightly packed, I am referring to the actual skyscrapers, not mid-rise buildings. New York has a lot of mid-rises in between its skyscrapers, whereas the Loop is nearly all scrapers, one after the other. Also, they FEEL more tightly packed because of the way they just rise straight up and continue all the way into the sky.
Even buildings that do set themselves back do it subtly (see: Chase building). There are a few art deco scrapers that imitate their brethren in NYC with some more classical setbacks (see: Pittsfield Building), but these are more rare.
I will give it to you about the gangways, though. I have never noticed the alleys having an effect on the overall impression that the buildings give, though.
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.
LOL
