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)
 
Old 01-14-2014, 04:00 PM
 
1,998 posts, read 2,931,177 times
Reputation: 2150

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
Good lord... I have no idea who this "Edward Glaeser" is, but it should be obvious to anyone with an IQ higher than a golf shoe that cities, by their very nature, have more people consuming more resources with more cars, more smog, more trash, more litter and more vermin. If you combine this with the fact that the aging infrastructure of most major cities contains a great deal of asbestos and lead paint, you'd have to be a half-wit to come to the conclusion that this magically results in a cleaner living environment.

Using that silly logic, Glaeser must believe that Beijing is the cleanest city on the planet!



So we are supposed to ignore the scientific model which would consider the raw tonnage of CO2 emissions, smog, litter and pollution the inhabitants of a city creates per square mile simply because it disproves your belief that cities are a hotbed of green living? Cities create more pollution, period. All the statistical manipulation in the world isn't going to change that fact.
You've got some seriously flawed thinking here. Cities have LESS car use per person than suburbs or rural areas because people don't need to drive as much in cities.

You take a city of a million people and a suburban or rural area of 1 million people. The city is cleaner because it will tend to be less spread out and less auto-dependent than the suburb or rural area.

If you took the population of Manhattan out of the city and into suburbs, would car use go up or down? Pretty easy question to answer.

The "scientific model" you are referring to doesn't exist. The opposite is true. The average person in a suburb produces more smog, litter, CO2, etc. than the average person in a city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-14-2014, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,165 posts, read 29,650,120 times
Reputation: 26646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Most elementary schools, at least in my area, are in fact in residential areas. Most cities also have school zone speed limits of around 20 MPH. In rural areas schools are more likely to be on a major road. Sometimes the school was built before the road became so busy, as well.

It's not just the location of the school that is problematic, either. My kids' ele school is in a residential area, but they had to cross a 6 lane 40 mph road to get there. I did let them ride their bikes when they were older, after much instruction and practice in crossing the street. The schools usually don't provide any help with crossing anywhere but the street the school is on, and the 20 mph limit is only for a short distance around the school. One of the links referred to the big mass of traffic in the 15 minutes at the beginning and end of the day. If you've ever driven by a school at those times, you've seen what it's like. It's no wonder schools are concerned about the kids' safety.
That mad rush at the busy drop off times is problematic. One nearby middle school is on a busy street, so going past there in the AM or PM is a disaster, it is right across from the Whole Foods loading dock too. I also notice that most school driveways are setup in a way that makes it so you really don't need to pay attention after your kid gets out of the car. The "convenient" half moon driveway is actually terrible for the safety of people not driving. Cars tend to basically speed off through the driveway/sidewalk once their kids are out of the car. There has got to be better design out there.

Most school zones only have the 20 mph when school is in session, but everyone (not in a car) benefits when the full time speed limit is lower. Why can't it be 20 mph all the time?

We have crossing guards on "busy streets," as well, some are not all that close to the school I am still trying to figure out where the kids are walking to in my neighborhood. That school is totally hidden but there are crossing guards across the busy 4 lane road. It is really odd, because the speed limit is 35, and the road design makes you want to speed although the speed limit should be 25 or less, considering the density, hills and number of driveways on it. There are also a lot of "walking school buses" funded via a Safe Routes to school program.

SRTS Guide: The Walking School Bus: Combining Safety, Fun and the Walk to School
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 04:17 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,003,828 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
That mad rush at the busy drop off times is problematic. One nearby middle school is on a busy street, so going past there in the AM or PM is a disaster, it is right across from the Whole Foods loading dock too. I also notice that most school driveways are setup in a way that makes it so you really don't need to pay attention after your kid gets out of the car. The "convenient" half moon driveway is actually terrible for the safety of people not driving. Cars tend to basically speed off through the driveway/sidewalk once their kids are out of the car. There has got to be better design out there.
Considering billion-dollar airports can't figure this out--look at the chaos of arrivals pick-ups--I'm not sure if there's a great design, just less bad designs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 04:32 PM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,193,007 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Since you don't have any kids, I don't think you are the one to be pontificating on what parents "should" do.

Funny how there's practically no interest in schools on this forum, except regarding how the kids get there. ]
This is kinda funny. You complain that people on the urban planning forum are not interested in schools.
Then you tell someone who shares some very good thoughts about urban schools that they should not comment "because they don't have kids!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 06:06 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,555,922 times
Reputation: 5662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
Good lord... I have no idea who this "Edward Glaeser" is, but it should be obvious to anyone with an IQ higher than a golf shoe that cities, by their very nature, have more people consuming more resources with more cars, more smog, more trash, more litter and more vermin. If you combine this with the fact that the aging infrastructure of most major cities contains a great deal of asbestos and lead paint, you'd have to be a half-wit to come to the conclusion that this magically results in a cleaner living environment.

Using that silly logic, Glaeser must believe that Beijing is the cleanest city on the planet!



So we are supposed to ignore the scientific model which would consider the raw tonnage of CO2 emissions, smog, litter and pollution the inhabitants of a city creates per square mile simply because it disproves your belief that cities are a hotbed of green living? Cities create more pollution, period. All the statistical manipulation in the world isn't going to change that fact.
Did you mean IQ higher than a golf score?
Given it's colloquial usage, I'm quite sure you did, which is a bit ironic, considering your entire post is off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 06:07 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,647 posts, read 74,585,953 times
Reputation: 48140
bek safety is a major area of concern for many people in america. children and the elderly are now fair game for crime and self defense is severely punished as a crime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 06:27 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,987 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
This is kinda funny. You complain that people on the urban planning forum are not interested in schools.
Then you tell someone who shares some very good thoughts about urban schools that they should not comment "because they don't have kids!"
She's not giving any ideas about improving schools. She's talking about how kids GET to school, as if that's the most important thing (which I already said), plus, telling parents what to do once they drop their kids off. How does biking to school improve achievement?

Actually, the conversation was going pretty well, with some points of agreement, until the above.

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 01-14-2014 at 06:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 06:42 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,327,543 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
She's not giving any ideas about improving schools. She's talking about how kids GET to school, as if that's the most important thing (which I already said).
Well, it is hard for a kid to do better in math when they got ran over by a speeding semi on the four-lane highway that runs in front of the school.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 06:48 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,987 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33050
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
Well, it is hard for a kid to do better in math when they got ran over by a speeding semi on the four-lane highway that runs in front of the school.
It sure is! Biking to school won't help that!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2014, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,165 posts, read 29,650,120 times
Reputation: 26646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
She's not giving any ideas about improving schools. She's talking about how kids GET to school, as if that's the most important thing (which I already said), plus, telling parents what to do once they drop their kids off. How does biking to school improve achievement?

Actually, the conversation was going pretty well, with some points of agreement, until the above.
I disagree that achievement has any relation to planning, it is just off topic in terms of city design. This isn't called the "livability" forum.
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
Similar Threads
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