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 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,985 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
Earlier you wanted me to be more specific about the types of suburbs in my critique. So, I now distinguish between old streetcar suburbs and their denizens and the auto-centric post-war greenfield development that dominated most of the second half of the 20th century as sprawl - I'm by no means the only and certainly not the first to do so - it's a commonly accepted term for such.

Denizens of sprawl (as opposed to denizens of streetcar suburbs) = sprawlites. Not sure I understand the problem with this.
The #1 problem is you're trolling by coming up with such a pejorative word. I wish our mod would get on this as fast as he does slights (imagined and real) against people who live in the city.

The #2 problem is that suburbs come in many different forms. (That's the problem, nei, BTW, in talking about "suburban form".)

 
Old 01-22-2013, 10:34 AM
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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
Denizens of sprawl (as opposed to denizens of streetcar suburbs) = sprawlites. Not sure I understand the problem with this.
Because sprawl is usually used as a perjorative. It's not the same as calling those who live in urban areas as "urbanites".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The #2 problem is that suburbs come in many different forms.
But Komeht appears to be using sprawl to refer to a certain type of form.
 
Old 01-22-2013, 10:45 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,985 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Because sprawl is usually used as a perjorative. It's not the same as calling those who live in urban areas as "urbanites".



But Komeht appears to be using sprawl to refer to a certain type of form.
No he's not! Anyone who doesn't live in a city, according to him, is a "sprawlite".

Here are some of his statements:

Quote:
1. All folks living in the suburbs by choice are sprawlites. If it walks like a duck. . .
(Emphasis mine)


Quote:
Clearly I was talking about the sprawlites who commute centrally, not the sprawlites who commute to the nearby pod. What part of that didn't you understand?
( Again, emphasis mine)

Quote:
Denizens of sprawl (as opposed to denizens of streetcar suburbs) = sprawlites. Not sure I understand the problem with this.
I will add, let Komeht explain which suburbs he feels are sprawl suburbs. It sounds like he means all post-war suburbs. Am I right, K?

Last edited by nei; 01-22-2013 at 10:54 AM.. Reason: sorry, but you also can't say other posters are trolling
 
Old 01-22-2013, 10:50 AM
 
6,635 posts, read 4,593,253 times
Reputation: 13346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The #1 problem is you're trolling by coming up with such a pejorative word. I wish our mod would get on this as fast as he does slights (imagined and real) against people who live in the city.

The #2 problem is that suburbs come in many different forms. (That's the problem, nei, BTW, in talking about "suburban form".)
An urbanite is trolling! Hmmm... since the troll lives in the city (and maybe even under a bridge in the city), I propose we henceforth call EVERYONE who lives in a city "Trollites". That couldn't possibly be wrong since we know it correctly applies to at least one urbanite. I say paint 'em all with the same brush, deserved or not.
 
Old 01-22-2013, 10:53 AM
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
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Anyone who doesn't live in a city, according to him, is a "sprawlite".
Quote:
I will add, let Komeht explain which suburbs he feels are sprawl suburbs. It sounds like he means all post-war suburbs. Am I right, K?
The two bolded statements contradict themselves. Though perhaps Komeht is contradicting himself.
 
Old 01-22-2013, 10:58 AM
 
7,592 posts, read 9,444,553 times
Reputation: 8949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
Clearly I was talking about the sprawlites who commute centrally, not the sprawlites who commute to the nearby pod. What part of that didn't you understand?

Feel free to call me an urbanite. I wear my badge proudly.
Then we'll refer to you as being a "sardine-can enthusiast". What could possibly be offensive about that?
 
Old 01-22-2013, 11:11 AM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,003,828 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me View Post
You assume all "sprawlites" (as you so kindly dub people who chose to live places you disprove of) work in the city center. I don't and neither does my husband. Why would we want to pay a premium price for living 2-3 miles from it? If we want to go uptown during the evenings or weekends to eat or attend an event, commute time is 20 minutes. My current commute to work is nothing since I work at home and my husbands is 10 minutes. Our suburban location makes both better environmental and economic sense.
I would say (as does research on the matter) that it is human nature to inaccurately consider commute time and distance. If you're sitting in traffic (or, generally, not doing something), time is overestimated by the average person. It "feels" like a longer time than it is. But, if you ask a person about their commute, people tend to underestimate how long it takes to get between two points.

While it is good that your situation works for you, an anecdote only represents 1 data point, which is not enough to represent a trend. There's no way to know if you are typical or atypical, which is why I do not like anecdotes in debates.
 
Old 01-22-2013, 11:19 AM
 
6,635 posts, read 4,593,253 times
Reputation: 13346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
Most times when someone offers up a critique of suburban sprawl - it's quite obvious the kind of development they are criticizing. Invariable defenders of sprawl will spark up and go - nu huh - look at Coral Gables - it's gorgeous (as if that's the kind of development in question).

Katy Texas is NEVER going to be or look like Coral Gables or Shaker Heights of any of those old pre-war suburbs, no matter how much a patina of age you put on it.
Why isn't Coral Gables the kind of development in question? I lived there for many years and in much of the city, excepting a park or two, all other destinations required a car. There's no street car and anyone commuting to downtown Miami has quite a long commute time wise. Yes, it's a pre-war suburb and is most definitely gorgeous, but is no less car dependent than many post-war suburbs.
 
Old 01-22-2013, 11:30 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,985 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
I would say (as does research on the matter) that it is human nature to inaccurately consider commute time and distance. If you're sitting in traffic (or, generally, not doing something), time is overestimated by the average person. It "feels" like a longer time than it is. But, if you ask a person about their commute, people tend to underestimate how long it takes to get between two points.

While it is good that your situation works for you, an anecdote only represents 1 data point, which is not enough to represent a trend. There's no way to know if you are typical or atypical, which is why I do not like anecdotes in debates.
Yes, the research does prove that ALL people inaccurately estimate the time it takes to commute. My DD told me that when she took "Human Geography" in college. She even told me why, but I forget now. Distance can be measured on your odometer, and most people do that, and can tell you down to the 1/10 mile. My commute is 4.4 miles. But this is ALL people, city people too. The guy who sits on a bus for an hour may say, "It's about 45 minutes". Or he says, "The bus ride is 30 minutes", but he doesn't add in the time to/from the bus, and the waiting time to take a bus that will get him to work on time. In other words, the bus might get him to work at 7:30 and he doesn't have to be there until 8. In some work situations, that would be OK, but in others, not. He might get done with work at 5, but have to wait until 5:15 for the next bus. That adds to the commute, too.

Now my other DD says it takes 42 minutes for her to get to work, and I believe her.
 
Old 01-22-2013, 11:42 AM
 
6,635 posts, read 4,593,253 times
Reputation: 13346
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
I would say (as does research on the matter) that it is human nature to inaccurately consider commute time and distance. If you're sitting in traffic (or, generally, not doing something), time is overestimated by the average person. It "feels" like a longer time than it is. But, if you ask a person about their commute, people tend to underestimate how long it takes to get between two points.

While it is good that your situation works for you, an anecdote only represents 1 data point, which is not enough to represent a trend. There's no way to know if you are typical or atypical, which is why I do not like anecdotes in debates.
My post was in response to the OP's statement that all "sprawlites" (as he/she rudely calls anyone living in a post-war suburb) have a long commute. Sometimes, I get tired of posts that generalize on either side of the urban/suburban debate and take offense. So sue me, I'm human.

And, while my commute (0 due to working at home) is not typical of my area, my husband's commute of 10 minutes is. We live in a city where there are 3 large business districts. And when I say large, 1 of the 2 suburban business districts is bigger than the downtown of the next largest city in the state as measured by office space. Both of the suburban business districts have large office buildings surrounded by retail, dining, shopping, apartment homes, townhomes and single family homes. Anyone living within a 5 mile radius of these areas likely has about a 10 minute commute. And many living closer can walk to work as well. Many (notice I did not say ALL) that choose to live in these suburban areas also work in the nearest suburban business district. Both of these areas were developed post-war, one starting in the early 1950s and another in the mid 1990s.

But, in the views of some, it's all evil suburbia if one doesn't live in close proximity to the city center in a pre-war streetcar suburb regardless of the reason.
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