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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-18-2013, 10:12 AM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,812,547 times
Reputation: 9769

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geologic View Post
Is the city "the biggest polluter", I don't think so, since most cities have done away with their heavy industry. However, the city is the biggest energy user, just as you might expect. But if you run the numbers ON A PER CAPITA BASIS, then you find the exact opposite. City dwellers use less energy and other resources than those outside the city. I suppose all that driving that rural and suburban people do is the reason for this.
Do you have a source for these numbers? I don't have the numbers on a town by town basis, only by state. If you look at the top states for energy consumption, you find a few which appear to support your thesis; Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, Texas. But the correlation is pretty poor -- the District of Columbia is included in the list, and despite being both 100% urban and lacking in heavy industry, it's near the middle at 28. Then at the bottom you have Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, Florida, New Hampshire, California, Hawaii, and Arizona. Seems like quite a poor correlation to me.
United States - Rankings - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-18-2013, 05:47 PM
 
Location: Hong Kong
1,329 posts, read 872,018 times
Reputation: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Do you have a source for these numbers? I don't have the numbers on a town by town basis, only by state. If you look at the top states for energy consumption, you find a few which appear to support your thesis; Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, Texas. But the correlation is pretty poor -- the District of Columbia is included in the list, and despite being both 100% urban and lacking in heavy industry, it's near the middle at 28. Then at the bottom you have Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, Florida, New Hampshire, California, Hawaii, and Arizona. Seems like quite a poor correlation to me.
United States - Rankings - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
This is discussed at maybe 1/4 of the way through this presentation:


CNU 20 - The Paradox of Emerging Cities - YouTube

Much of my thinking on these issues has been informed by watching many videos on this subject, and it is not always easy to retrieve the source. The more knowledge I have obtained, the less I like cars.

If you think the US has a problem with car-dependency and oil-dependency, the Middle East has a far worse problem. If every they run out of oil, God-help-them.



The Middle East has American car-dependency on steroids, as these guys burn through the planet's resources. The reward for them?: They have an even worse obesity problem than America, as unlikely as that may seem.

Last edited by Geologic; 02-18-2013 at 06:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2013, 09:41 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 14 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,980 posts, read 102,527,356 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geologic View Post
How do denser cities cope with the "drive to work issue"?

Well, in a city with a more mature transport network, employers will often CHOOSE TO BE NEAR transport stations, because they know it will make them more attractive to work.

Progress in that direction will take time, but I suppose if employers know that their employees can spend less money, and maybe less time, in getting to work, they will find that they have less turnover.
Please provide several examples, since you say this happens "often".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2013, 09:59 AM
 
Location: Hong Kong
1,329 posts, read 872,018 times
Reputation: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Please provide several examples, since you say this happens "often".
It is very common in Hong Kong (and other cities with superb transit) to have offices near stations.
This is something American co's will need to relearn (to survive, I reckon)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2013, 04:31 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
45,983 posts, read 41,921,149 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Please provide several examples, since you say this happens "often".
One of the draws of offices locating in Midtown Manhattan is the rail access. The densest section commanding the most rents surrounds Grand Central Terminal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2013, 06:05 PM
 
Location: Hong Kong
1,329 posts, read 872,018 times
Reputation: 217
Just how "purist" am I in my Carfree intent?

Someone asked this on the Carfree-Asheville thread:
Are you looking for a place where you can live and take care of your needs without owning a car, hiring a taxi, hitching rides with others, renting a car, or taking a bus? A purist?
Or are you looking for a place where you can have an economical car which you use in a limited way


Answer: The first (Carfree living)...
- as I have said elsewhere, I now hold an expired drivers license, and do not want to ever have to get it renewed - that's a challenge, I know - but there must be places in America, even in Asheville where I can live happily that way. Of course, I will be happy to take buses, and hire an occasional taxi. In fact, they are bound to be a vital part of my living arrangement.

By sticking to carfree plan, I reckon I will wind up buying property in a place with a brighter future, since I do not want to be directly exposed to the risk of higher oil prices.

Of course, once I find the "ideal" place, and move in there, I may find that I am better off owning a car and using it occasionally, and I will be flexible enough to consider a "car-light" option then.

But I am conducting a "purist" search right now - and seeking full no personal car living.

I have already found a few places where I think I can live happily that way. But none in Asheville so far.

A reason I mention "car-light" is that I want this thread to be useful to other people who might read it in the future. Others may take less of a "purist" approach than I do. But let's see, I have found that there are some others also aiming to live Carfree in the NC/SC area.

Last edited by Geologic; 02-22-2013 at 06:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2013, 01:41 AM
 
Location: Hong Kong
1,329 posts, read 872,018 times
Reputation: 217
I want to share this here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by NDL View Post
I respectfully disagree.
Look, you make many good points in favor of mass transit, and I agree with some of what you have to say.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't understand why you favor ditching automobiles altogether. Surely there are other domestically produced fuels that could be used in lieu of gasoline.
I am not sure why you think that?
My main idea (for the US): is to move towards "car-light" living, as you see in much of Europe. That means smaller cars, with greater fuel economy, and much more mass transit - commuting by trains and buses.

My main idea (for myself): is to seek a place where I can live carfree - BECAUSE the closer I can get to that ideal, the less I will feel the future oil shocks. But I don't think that everyone needs to carry it so far.

But like JHK and others, I don't think that new ways of powering cars is going to be any more than a very small part of the answer. The real answer is to CHANGE WHERE AND HOW PEOPLE LIVE, to live with a much reduced amount of car-and-oil-dependency.

The way I see it, it is almost impossible for a person who is wide awake to the-risks-I-see to live in America, so addicted in the US economy to cars. But I no longer accept that staying-away as the correct final verdict. US Property prices are now low enough, and the understanding of the oil price risk is growing, so NOW may be the right time to look for those pockets where people can live in a sensible Car-Light way. Or, I may be early... once again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NDL View Post
That's an interesting point. A good five or six years ago, I do remember an argument being made in favor of limiting the price of the barrel to a certain point, lest consumers find themselves fed up with gasoline, and a serious desire for alternative fuels gets under way.

I'm surprised that people aren't more vocal (in a productive way), about the high cost of oil.
We agree on that last part.
I suppose people just do not want to face the hard choices, if it means disrupting their habitual ways of living. My "purist" - an almost zen-like, single-minded discipline - will go far beyond what most people are willing to contemplate.


Zen in the Art of Carfree Living
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2013, 05:50 AM
 
935 posts, read 1,055,637 times
Reputation: 1777
Okay but the biggest problem is the idea that one person, or group of people, or need can or should change how and where people live. If the biggest fear is pollution than why not demand cars that do not run on fuel. They are out there. My cousin was working on one when he was in grad school but an oil company bought the design and ditched it.

Why would I move to a city and change my life to one I actively despise to fit the whims of another group? Now if you want car free areas within a city this I can understand. But you seem to have a rabid desire to do away with automobiles all together.

And then we get into the concept of being herded to destinations like cattle locked into a trailer with no influence on our direction. No control. If I am driving to work and realize I forgot my lunch I simply turn around and go home and get it. Because I am in control. If I want to hop in the car and go on a trip I just do, I don't plan anything. I don't bring a map or create a schedule. For me that's the way I want to live. That's supposed to be the beauty of this country, choice to live our lives in the way that makes us happy.

It seems like you are so committed to carfree living that you are unable to appreciate or recognize that there are other perspectives in this discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2013, 07:09 AM
 
Location: Hong Kong
1,329 posts, read 872,018 times
Reputation: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaleyRocks View Post
Why would I move to a city and change my life to one I actively despise to fit the whims of another group? Now if you want car free areas within a city this I can understand. But you seem to have a rabid desire to do away with automobiles all together.
Do you "despise" City living because:
+ You lived that way, and found it wanting? (When? Where?), or because:
+ You can imagine how bad it would be to live in a city /
If the second, you should consider changing your attitude - spending some time in an attractive city environment might help you do that.

I dislike suburban living, because I grew up in a Detroit "automobile suburb", and found that life wanting. Since I left it behind, I have learned to like urban life. Though not all aspects of it. I think I know how to find the aspects I like, and good transport connections are a key part of it.

I hardly have "a rabid desire to do away with autos." And I wonder why you have a "rabid desire" to put words in my mouse.

My dislike of the car-dependent culture which dominates large parts of the country is related to the following points:

+ Car owners so dominate politics and city planning, that they have robbed most of us of alternative transportation options. This is more true in the US than anywhere else I have lived,

+ Car owners grab subsidies for their roads and for free parking, costing the rest of us to pay higher taxes and other financial inconveniences,

+ Car owners support politicians looking to expand the expensive US military presence abroad, because the politicians promise to "keep the oil lanes open", while the real purpose of the spending may be to give business to their donors in the military industrial complex, and to support the interests of Israel (another powerful donor),

+ Car owners continue investing in the suburbs at a time when the US should be modifying its living arrangement towards something which is cheaper to maintain, and has a less toxic impact on the environment.

Beyond these points, I have no particular issues with the car culture, except that I find certain car-oriented conversations to be boring.

Do you think my opposition to car dependency is irrational, now that I have listed the reasons?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2013, 07:29 AM
 
Location: NC
6,543 posts, read 7,956,796 times
Reputation: 13438
The idea of designing new areas to be 'walkable' and car-free is relatively new in my area, near Raleigh NC. A development company with this idea in mind is planning a community to be known as Veridea on 1000 acres in Apex NC. The ulitmate build out should be just what is missing in most cities--attractive areas where one can work, live and play in the same fairly densely planned community. The trouble is that this will take time to create. Investors and businesses will want some indication that this whole notion will work, and so does the Apex town planning department. But with the increased percentage of young adults, childless couples, and retiring seniors drawn to this type of plan it seems like the time is coming. I just hope that the construction won't be geared toward quick profits, but toward a forever legacy.

Last edited by luv4horses; 02-23-2013 at 07:30 AM.. Reason: grammar
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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