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.
what is so wrong with liking the suburbs? I assume that is what you mean.
First, keep in mind that I am in no way talking about all suburbs--rather, I am talking about highly automobile-dependent suburbs, the kind where other forms of mobility are difficult if not impossible. Like crack cocaine, it forces a dependency on an expensive and unhealthy habit--habitual use of the automobile.
If your suburb is walkable, on the other hand, I think it's just dandy.
First, keep in mind that I am in no way talking about all suburbs--rather, I am talking about highly automobile-dependent suburbs, the kind where other forms of mobility are difficult if not impossible. Like crack cocaine, it forces a dependency on an expensive and unhealthy habit--habitual use of the automobile.
If your suburb is walkable, on the other hand, I think it's just dandy.
There are people who like driving there cars. What is unhealthy about. Why should the only mode transportation be walking? What about an unhealthy dependancy on a bus or using a taxi in the city?
There are people who like driving there cars. What is unhealthy about.
If driving cars is an enjoyable hobby for you, then indulge that hobby, but it shouldn't be subsidized by the federal government the way it is now. Of course, it's a fairly dangerous hobby--cars pollute our air, they kill 30,000 or so Americans a year, and they make our cities harder to get around using any other mode, far bigger than they would be otherwise, taking up land that would otherwise be preserved as wildland or farmland. Much of the space in a car-centric place isn't needed or even utilized by people--it is there for cars and cars alone.
Quote:
Why should the only mode transportation be walking? What about an unhealthy dependancy on a bus or using a taxi in the city?
Again, you are assuming absolutes where none are being stated. I'm not saying "ban cars." Nor am I saying that people should only use buses or taxis, or only walk. Cars can be very useful. But we shouldn't design our cities (or our suburbs) as their exclusive domain.
Some folks take issue with contemporary suburbs because most of the American built environment of the past six or so decades has been in the form of highly car-centric suburbs.
Also, there are other issues to consider: the consequences of car-centric suburban design also make cities less livable, because of the demands of the automobile-dependent who insist that we demolish blocks of our cities to make more parking spaces. It's not just a matter of "live and let live" because what happens around urban cores inevitably affects those places.
If driving cars is an enjoyable hobby for you, then indulge that hobby, but it shouldn't be subsidized by the federal government the way it is now. Of course, it's a fairly dangerous hobby--cars pollute our air, they kill 30,000 or so Americans a year, and they make our cities harder to get around using any other mode, far bigger than they would be otherwise, taking up land that would otherwise be preserved as wildland or farmland. Much of the space in a car-centric place isn't needed or even utilized by people--it is there for cars and cars alone.
Again, you are assuming absolutes where none are being stated. I'm not saying "ban cars." Nor am I saying that people should only use buses or taxis, or only walk. Cars can be very useful. But we shouldn't design our cities (or our suburbs) as their exclusive domain.
Some folks take issue with contemporary suburbs because most of the American built environment of the past six or so decades has been in the form of highly car-centric suburbs.
Also, there are other issues to consider: the consequences of car-centric suburban design also make cities less livable, because of the demands of the automobile-dependent who insist that we demolish blocks of our cities to make more parking spaces. It's not just a matter of "live and let live" because what happens around urban cores inevitably affects those places.
Than I guess urban areas shouldn't be designed for taxies or buses either. If you are going to argue about cars, the same can be said for buses and taxies also.
Than I guess urban areas shouldn't be designed for taxies or buses either. If you are going to argue about cars, the same can be said for buses and taxies also.
Buses and taxis don't require lots of parking spaces.
Than I guess urban areas shouldn't be designed for taxies or buses either. If you are going to argue about cars, the same can be said for buses and taxies also.
You're right, they shouldn't. They should be designed for people. In a city designed for people, there is room for taxis, buses and automobiles, but the pedestrian is first and foremost in urban design considerations. As nei mentions, unlike personal automobiles, taxis and buses don't require large designated parking lots in front of each business, so they can be quite compatible with the pedestrian-centered city. Bicycles and fixed-rail transit also work well in such environments--and, yes, a limited amount of space for automobiles. But someone coming from another place with a car should not expect a "free" parking space right in front of the place they are shopping, any more than they should expect a free meal in a restaurant or free merchandise at a store, or free rent in a residence. Parking in a city is a high-value item. By attaching a market-rate cost to parking, other modes can be more readily emphasized, and the supply of available land for other uses is less affected by the call of parking.
Similarly, ever-widening highways are another intrusion on the people-designed urban center. Just as they aren't much fun in a people-oriented suburb!
I wonder which cities (if any) the opposite is true; the difference in diversity (assuming the suburbs are less diverse on average than the city; might not be true in a few metro areas ) between city and suburb increased rather decreased.
Since the nation is a whole is getting more diverse, I would think it would be unlikely that a metro area as a whole would become less diverse, just the distribution would change.
I can't find the article, but I think they said only 2 metropolitan areas saw a decrease in their diversity index (if you picked two random people, what's the chance that they'll be of two difference races/ethnicities? In NYC it was 74%, and in Miami it was 47%, but that was just for the core city). I know one of those cities was Birmingham, and the other one was another Southern city.
So yeah, the general trend is pretty much towards diversity in all aspects (nationwide, by metro area, and at the neighborhood level)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nighttrain55
There are people who like driving there cars. What is unhealthy about. Why should the only mode transportation be walking? What about an unhealthy dependancy on a bus or using a taxi in the city?
It's like saying "Being dependant on cake and candy (driving) is the same as being dependant on grains (walking), vegetables (trains & buses), and meat (taxis)".
Quote:
Originally Posted by nighttrain55
Than I guess urban areas shouldn't be designed for taxies or buses either. If you are going to argue about cars, the same can be said for buses and taxies also.
As nei said, buses and taxis don't require as many parking spaces (which take up land and limit the availability of land to build residences, shopping, cultural attractions, etc).
Plus, you could sort of make the argument for taxis, but buses in an urban area move way more people than cars do, given the same amount of space.
I can't find the article, but I think they said only 2 metropolitan areas saw a decrease in their diversity index (if you picked two random people, what's the chance that they'll be of two difference races/ethnicities? In NYC it was 74%, and in Miami it was 47%, but that was just for the core city). I know one of those cities was Birmingham, and the other one was another Southern city.
So yeah, the general trend is pretty much towards diversity in all aspects (nationwide, by metro area, and at the neighborhood level)
It's like saying "Being dependant on cake and candy (driving) is the same as being dependant on grains (walking), vegetables (trains & buses), and meat (taxis)".
As nei said, buses and taxis don't require as many parking spaces (which take up land and limit the availability of land to build residences, shopping, cultural attractions, etc).
Plus, you could sort of make the argument for taxis, but buses in an urban area move way more people than cars do, given the same amount of space.
Here is my problem, if you don't like cars than you shouldn't like buses or taxies. They are automobiles. I don't see how being dependent on a taxi or bus is any healthier than being dependent on a car. They both use gas.
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.
