U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-22-2013, 10:26 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,715,982 times
Reputation: 2538

Advertisements

Urban dictionary defines it as an urban fashionista. Erhaps it's a homonym.

In any case, I wouldn't be offended by ther term - although I confess to knowing nothing about fashion and don't even know what a fashionista is.

 
Old 01-23-2013, 05:48 AM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,104,114 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I can assure you, living in a suburb of Pittsburgh as I did, that few people in 1960 had two cars. The stat I found said 15%, and I'd wager an hour's salary that those people lived in farther out burbs that had NO bus service.
Is that what you were arguing? I thought you were saying that there were a significant number of ZERO car households. If you are saying that one car was the norm, I agree and apologize for misunderstanding.
 
Old 01-23-2013, 06:45 AM
 
Location: Poshawa, Ontario
2,986 posts, read 3,321,887 times
Reputation: 5622
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
Except Scarborough only became part of "the city" in 1998, by annexation. This anecdote doesn't exactly make your point, IMO.
Scarborough is a high-density city that is part and parcel of Toronto. Claiming it isn't would be like claiming Queens isn't really part of NYC.

Quote:
Anyway, there are usually cases where the furthest reaches of a subway line are further, timewise, from the center of the city than a suburb on a commuter rail line. I could think of a few examples of this in NYC and its surroundings.
There's a reason why the TTC is colloquially called "Take The Car". It's a very overpriced and extremely inefficient public transit service.
 
Old 01-23-2013, 07:29 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,006 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
Really??? A google search for "urbanista" shows more than 2 million results. Hopefully you got a trademark
Well, if I had known that, I would have applied for a trademark. I didn't know it was out there. I've always liked words, and I just thought it sounded cool, and a sort of reference to the radical Sandinistas (which many on this forum are too young to have ever heard of).
 
Old 01-23-2013, 07:32 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,006 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
Is that what you were arguing? I thought you were saying that there were a significant number of ZERO car households. If you are saying that one car was the norm, I agree and apologize for misunderstanding.
Sort of. I said earlier I did not know any families in 1960 that did not have A car, though I did know of a few older people like my grandmother who didn't. She didn't get around by walking, BTW; she called my father, and I think he took her grocery shopping, too. The situation in 1945 was much different though. BTW, in that picture of the open house, do you think that was staged? All the cars look the same.
 
Old 01-23-2013, 07:36 AM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,104,114 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
BTW, in that picture of the open house, do you think that was staged? All the cars look the same.
Maybe, but there were fewer brands of cars then, and they varied little in appearance until later in the 50s and 60s.
 
Old 01-23-2013, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,762,451 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
Scarborough is a high-density city that is part and parcel of Toronto. Claiming it isn't would be like claiming Queens isn't really part of NYC.



There's a reason why the TTC is colloquially called "Take The Car". It's a very overpriced and extremely inefficient public transit service.
What part of Scarborough?

People looking to give up their car aren't going to move to outer Scarborough, that's for sure, maybe the SW corner of Scarborough near the subway, or better yet in Old Toronto or at least Yonge and Sheppard. I doubt it would take 90 minutes from there. On the other hand, if you live in Morningside Heights, than yeah, you're probably better of driving and I could easily see it taking that long since you'd have to take a long bus ride to get to the subway.

And transit for a year at around $1500 is still a lot less than the cost of owning a car.

Scarborough isn't that dense either, more like Mississauga than York, let alone Old Toronto.
 
Old 01-23-2013, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Poshawa, Ontario
2,986 posts, read 3,321,887 times
Reputation: 5622
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
What part of Scarborough?

People looking to give up their car aren't going to move to outer Scarborough, that's for sure, maybe the SW corner of Scarborough near the subway, or better yet in Old Toronto or at least Yonge and Sheppard. I doubt it would take 90 minutes from there. On the other hand, if you live in Morningside Heights, than yeah, you're probably better of driving and I could easily see it taking that long since you'd have to take a long bus ride to get to the subway.

And transit for a year at around $1500 is still a lot less than the cost of owning a car.

Scarborough isn't that dense either, more like Mississauga than York, let alone Old Toronto.
"Density" is a relative term. Compared to Oshawa, Scarborough is very densely populated.

I am not sure what part of Scarborough she lived in, but she said taking the LRT/Subway to St. Andrew was a longer commute than she has now from Oshawa to Union on the GO Train.

Personally, I really don't see the point of this thread. It seems many of you are using the "look I live in the most heavily congested cities" card (as well as stupid terms such as "sprawlites") as a way to try to shame those of us who enjoy a quieter, less hectic lifestyle with more privacy and larger living environments. Some posters are even trying to use city layouts from the 1940's, 50's and 60's to do this. Guess what? I wasn't even born in 1960, so what happened then is completely irrelevant to where I choose to live today.

BTW: Is the subburbs were never built, where do you think the now 3.5 million+ inhabitants of the GTA would live today? Would you stack them all into 250 square foot cubicles within gigantic skyscrapers? There simply isn't the land mass within York or Old Toronto to house that many people unless you have aspirations to building dystopian Blade Runner style buildings.
 
Old 01-23-2013, 04:02 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
Personally, I really don't see the point of this thread. It seems many of you are using the "look I live in the most heavily congested cities" card (as well as stupid terms such as "sprawlites") as a way to try to shame those of us who enjoy a quieter, less hectic lifestyle with more privacy and larger living environments.
well reading the OP, the point of this thread seems to be that suburbs (or outlying rather than infill development) of the streetcar era were very different than ones in the modern era: more mixed use and urban. Debateable but interesting. The thread would have probably been a much better if the OP hadn't included phrases suggesting some suburbs are terrible places, antagonzing some posters and removing more interesting discussion.

Quote:
Some posters are even trying to use city layouts from the 1940's, 50's and 60's to do this. Guess what? I wasn't even born in 1960, so what happened then is completely irrelevant to where I choose to live today.
That makes no sense. I was born much later than 1960, but both houses I grew up in were built before 1960 as well most housing I spent my adult life in and many places I visit. We're stuck (for better or worse) with what was built a long time ago. What happened then is relevant. If we're comparing streetcar-era suburbs with more modern ones, I'm not sure how one could ignore city layouts. For example, my post here was meant to describe changes:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/27889403-post97.html

The older suburb I described isn't exactly hectic and noisy outside its center by the train station.

Quote:
BTW: Is the subburbs were never built, where do you think the now 3.5 million+ inhabitants of the GTA would live today? Would you stack them all into 250 square foot cubicles within gigantic skyscrapers? There simply isn't the land mass within York or Old Toronto to house that many people unless you have aspirations to building dystopian Blade Runner style buildings.
I don't know much about GTA, nor was this thread GTA specific. But if we're comparing older vs newer suburbs, perhaps the idea is recent development in GTA could have built more like older, streetcar-era suburbs, not no outlying development should have ocurred at all. It seems like this distinction is less relevant for GTA than most American cities judging by memph's examples.

No said anything about suburbs not being built on this thread, but if Toronto's residential stock was built like this:

Brooklyn, NY - Google Maps

Toronto would hold at least 5 million, maybe as much as 7 million. No comment whether that would be good or bad, just that high rises aren't necessary.
 
Old 01-24-2013, 04:39 AM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,104,114 times
Reputation: 3117
It's remarkable to me that people think the ONLY type of dense development is "dystopian" or "soviet-style" towers. Talk about hyperbole!
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.


Closed Thread

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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top