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.
I thought Williamsburg is rowhouses, too, but I've mostly spent time in North/East Williamsburg (is South different?)
Driving from Williamsburg to Manhattan is a misuse of an automobile and rather senseless unless you're picking something heavy up (maybe). Driving may make sense if you're coming from some place far away without good transit or with from the suburbs with a group of people as commuter rail costs can add up for lots of people.
South Wburg has a core of rowhouse blocks, but lots of new (and a few old) six story apt buildings. Making as much sq footage as possible for hasidim with VERY large families.
N williamsburg has several new apt buildings as well. The architecture in N williamsburg is rather different than in S williamsburg.
The rationale for driving would have been A. Because with three of us the out of pocket non-parking costs would be lower by car B. The walk to the subway from my sister in laws building is relatively long, and the shortest route goes past some currently vacant/dead industrial lots
We weren't shopping but a place to dump stuff could be handy if you are shopping.
I did provide documentation that TB is a disease of overcrowding, as I have in the past. Some of my links are from quite recently. I did NOT say that TB is a huge problem today, either.
Density and overcrowding are not the same thing, though.
I thought Williamsburg is rowhouses, too, but I've mostly spent time in North/East Williamsburg (is South different?)
Some rowhouses. But also a lot of 4-6 story buildings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Driving from Williamsburg to Manhattan is a misuse of an automobile and rather senseless unless you're picking something heavy up (maybe). Driving may make sense if you're coming from some place far away without good transit or with from the suburbs with a group of people as commuter rail costs can add up for lots of people.
It depends on where you are going. If you're headed to Tribeca, then yes, that may be seen as senseless. But if you're headed to Washington Heights, then that makes perfect sense to me. On the weekends, the parking really isn't all that bad in Manhattan, and I've never experienced some of the parking horror stories I've heard around here.
I did provide documentation that TB is a disease of overcrowding, as I have in the past. Some of my links are from quite recently. I did NOT say that TB is a huge problem today, either.
Your expectations have been met, sorry.
For NYC in the late 19th century. Not at all relevant to today (and yes, TB IS still a problem in the USA today, but is not associated with high density)
You also quoted a link about the increase in infectious disease with the transition from RURAL villages. Which has next to nothing to do with discussions of higher and lower metropolitan density- its about numbers of face to face interactions, etc. Shopping malls would do just as well in spreading disease, if we had a world of low density, but no vaccines, no public health, etc.
It depends on where you are going. If you're headed to Tribeca, then yes, that may be seen as senseless. But if you're headed to Washington Heights, then that makes perfect sense to me. On the weekends, the parking really isn't all that bad in Manhattan, and I've never experienced some of the parking horror stories I've heard around here.
I was speaking assuming we would pay for a garage (since you had said that cars are convenient, if costly). I don't think Ive attempted to park on the street in midtown (which is where we were going) in decades. For other parts of manhattan, its hit or miss. You can luck out, or you can need to spend a lot of time looking.
Ive found it to be worse in S williamsburg, I guess. Which probably has a lot to do with the relatively high car ownership there, compared to the UWS say.
I was speaking assuming we would pay for a garage (since you had said that cars are convenient, if costly). I don't think Ive attempted to park on the street in midtown (which is where we were going) in decades. For other parts of manhattan, its hit or miss. You can luck out, or you can need to spend a lot of time looking.
Ive found it to be worse in S williamsburg, I guess. Which probably has a lot to do with the relatively high car ownership there, compared to the UWS say.
I never go to Midtown, but I assume parking there would be difficult. I park in NoLita with very little trouble most times. Parking in Harlem and UWS has never been an issue. The key is to just sit on the block for a while with your flashers on until someone pulls out.
The most difficult place to park by far, imo, is Adams-Morgan. And that might be because there's no Metro. All I know is that I spent hours there looking for parking. I eventually just stopped going there because it became virtually impossible to park there.
Maybe getting back to the OP... in the 1920s most trips (auto ownership in cities was a minority, though significant) were done on foot, transit or maybe bicycle. This meant either:
1) Transit had better service and connectivity than today
2) Or there were some trips that were rarely done as going from distant neighborhood A to distant neighborhood B in a city might awkward in a large city
3) People had patience for longer transit trips (for example, a friend who grew up in Brooklyn but now lives in Boston mentions locals tell him a 40 minute subway ride as long while he doesn't consider it a big deal)
1) Maybe. Certainly there were more routes. It's questionable if they were more connected than today. I recall long waits for transfers in my small hometown back in the 60s. In that situation, there were various independent bus companies, who seemingly made no effort to coordinate schedules.
2) Probably
3) Probably. We discussed this a while back. I stated that my town had service every 1/2 hour, which seemed adequate for my mom as a "happy homemaker" back in the 50s/60s. Some people on this board responded that every 1/2 hour is poor service; that they need service at least every 10 minutes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad
For NYC in the late 19th century. Not at all relevant to today (and yes, TB IS still a problem in the USA today, but is not associated with high density)
You also quoted a link about the increase in infectious disease with the transition from RURAL villages. Which has next to nothing to do with discussions of higher and lower metropolitan density- its about numbers of face to face interactions, etc. Shopping malls would do just as well in spreading disease, if we had a world of low density, but no vaccines, no public health, etc.
TB was a problem in the US well into the 1950s, if not longer. Yes, indeed, TB is a problem in the US today b/c of overcrowding, especially in prisons.
The association of housing density, isolation and tuberculosis in Canadian First Nations communities
(This one refers to TB in Canada) First Nations communities in Canada experience disproportionately high levels of overcrowded housing, degree of isolation, and rates of tuberculosis (TB). A study was done to assess the association between housing density, isolation, and the occurrence of TB in First Nations communities. . . . Conclusions This study shows a significant association between housing density, isolation, income levels, and TB. Overcrowded housing has the potential to increase exposure of susceptible individuals to infectious TB cases, and isolation from health services may increase the likelihood of TB
Regarding the bold, yes, I did post that. That link shows how disease was spread as people moved from rural areas to the cities. You do realize we were talking about the 1920s, or some earlier era, no?
You're right. Malls do cause disease to be spread. Some diseases require very little exposure to spread, e.g. measles. Some require a lot, e.g. tuberculosis. In other words, you can get measles if you're standing in line for the cash register behind someone who has it, and you can get it if someone who stood there two hours earlier has it (assuming you have no antibodies to measles); you don't get TB that way. Regarding pertussis, a huge CD problem right now, kids in the same classroom all day as a "case" are considered exposed; students who have one class with a "case" such as middle/high school students, are not considered exposed. EACH DISEASE IS DIFFERENT!
People per sq foot of built space is OVERCROWDING.
People per acre is density.
You can have overcrowding in a rural area (where most prisons are, for example)
You can have very dense places with no overcrowding.
I would think this is obvious.
In the place where I live, in Northern Virgnia, in 2013, we have places with severe overcrowding and moderate density - where immigrants, often undocumented, live several to a room, in two story garden apt complexes (with green space and parking lots) and occasionally in aging SFHs. I suspect TB is an issue in those places. They are in the "suburbs"
That link shows how disease was spread as people moved from rural areas to the cities. You do realize we were talking about the 1920s, or some earlier era, no?
The OP appeared to be contrasting the 1920s to today. I did not read him as contrasting the 1920s with the neolithic.
If that is the comparison, you are correct, the arrival of cities, in the Bronze Age, DID lead to the rise of herd diseases among humans. (see Guns Germs and Steel by J Diamond)
But on the flip side, we got writing, religion, philosophy, monumental art, and lots of other kewl stuff. Life expectancy may have gone down, but I think by the 1920s in the USA it was ahead of the neolithic average.
1) Maybe. Certainly there were more routes. It's questionable if they were more connected than today. I recall long waits for transfers in my small hometown back in the 60s. In that situation, there were various independent bus companies, who seemingly made no effort to coordinate schedules.
2) Probably
3) Probably. We discussed this a while back. I stated that my town had service every 1/2 hour, which seemed adequate for my mom as a "happy homemaker" back in the 50s/60s. Some people on this board responded that every 1/2 hour is poor service; that they need service at least every 10 minutes.
I'd assume 10 minute service maybe a little less would have been the norm in any pre-automobile city, at least any large one except for maybe late in the day. Most city transit I've used especially in areas with significant non-car modes tends to be high frequency, so I'd guess most transit was at 10 minute frequencies then, too (in bigger cities).
When I said connected, I was thinking of more routes, so less long and clumsy transfers would be required. The private ownership of transit might have made some things a bit worse back then, due to the lack of coordination as you mentioned. Separate fares may have been an issue, too. On the other hand, the extensive railroad system meant that it was easier to get from small town to big city in say, New England or NY State without a car. At the same time, more lived near town centers a short distance from train stations.
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.
