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, 06:57 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
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.
We talk about plenty of things on here other than city design, such as DUI on another thread. Good schools are necessary to a good city.

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 01-14-2014 at 07:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-15-2014, 07:51 AM
 
Location: Poshawa, Ontario
2,986 posts, read 3,320,081 times
Reputation: 5622
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
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.
What are you basing this on? While public transit is more heavily promoted in cities, it is very debatable whether that translates into more ridership per capita. To be quite honest, everyone I know that lives in Toronto has just as many cars per household as those of us who live in the subburbs, and I do not know anyone who does not have at least one. While this may not be the case in Manhattan, it is a fools game to compare Manhattan to Toronto or any other North American city. Manhattan is a world class city with an efficient and affordable transit system. Toronto is a second-class city with an very inefficient and expensive transit system. There are very good reasons why the people of Toronto colloquially refer to the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) as "Take The Car".

Quote:
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.
Assuming (incorrectly) that the only source of pollution is automobiles. In Oshawa (where I live) we maintain our own garbage/waste disposal. Toronto, on the other hand, pays the State of Michigan to take theirs. You can hardly claim this is a cleaner method when trucks have burn diesel to transport the garbage 5 hours to the Michigan border. We won't even get into how Toronto ships its recyclables to China.

Quote:
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.
Again, you are using Manhattan as your benchmark and implying that automobile use if the sole source of pollution in an urban environment. The former is unrealistic and the latter is simply false.

Quote:
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.
You claiming it doesn't exist because you are refusing to acknowledge it. Maintaining falsehoods that cars are the sole source of pollution in the city or subburb is a perfect example of this. If what you are claiming is true, why is smog so much worse in the city than it is in the subburbs? You can see the smog over Toronto plain as day from where I live. That is because we don't have any!

Regardless, you still have failed to impress on me how city living is "cleaner" or "healthier" than suburban living. Where I live, we have cleaner air, less vermin, our streets don't smell like raw sewage, less noise, less light pollution, quality parks and green spaces and less social problems (drug use, homelessness, etc.) than does Toronto, and on top of it all, less personal stress stemming from all those problems.

Again, how can you possibly argue that the environment I live in is unhealthier than what I'd experience in the city?

Last edited by Annuvin; 01-15-2014 at 08:08 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Center City
6,852 posts, read 7,799,244 times
Reputation: 9469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
We talk about plenty of things on here other than city design, such as DUI on another thread. Good schools are necessary to a good city.
But the thread is about density and walkability. If you want to ride a hobby horse on school improvement, open a different thread. The Education forum might be a good place for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 07:57 AM
 
1,998 posts, read 2,932,190 times
Reputation: 2150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
What are you basing this on? While public transit is more heavily promoted in cities, it is very debatable whether that translates into more ridership per capita. To be quite honest, everyone I know that lives in Toronto has just as many cars per household as those of us who live in the subburbs, and I do not know anyone who does not have at least one. While this may not be the case in Manhattan, it is a fools game to compare Manhattan to Toronto or any other North American city. Manhattan is a world class city with an efficient and affordable transit system. Toronto is a second-class city with an very inefficient and expensive transit system. There are very good reasons why the people of Toronto colloquially refer to the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) as "Take The Car".



Assuming (incorrectly) that the only source of pollution is automobiles. In Oshawa (where I live) we maintain our own garbage/waste disposal. Toronto, on the other hand, pays the State of Michigan to take theirs. You can hardly claim this is a cleaner method when trucks have burn diesel to transport the garbage 5 hours to the Michigan border. We won't even get into how Toronto ships its recyclables to China.



Again, you are using Manhattan as your benchmark and implying that automobile use if the sole source of pollution in an urban environment. The former is unrealistic and the latter is simply false.



You claiming it doesn't exist because you are refusing to acknowledge it. Maintaining falsehoods that cars are the sole source of pollution in the city or subburb is a perfect example of this. If what you are claiming is true, why is smog so much worse in the city than it is in the subburbs? You can see the smog over Toronto plain as day from where I live. That is because we don't have any!

Yes, suburbs do have more car use and hence more CO2 per capita than cities in general, not just more than Manhattan. That's shown by the Glaeser study I linked to earlier.

If for some reason you don't like that study, here's a study that specifically looked at Toronto:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011...nner_city.html

"Looking at per capita neighbourhood carbon emissions, the report indicates that suburbanites produce more than downtowners."

It's pointless to respond to the rest of your points because they all rest on the false assumption that suburbs have less car use than cities, which is empirically disproven.
There might be some particularly auto-dependent cities that are the exception, but in general, if you're in a city rather than the suburbs, you don't drive as much or as far.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 08:09 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm02 View Post
But the thread is about density and walkability. If you want to ride a hobby horse on school improvement, open a different thread. The Education forum might be a good place for it.
I agree that school improvement belongs in the ed forum. THIS thread is asking why density and walkability are such huge topics on this forum, when there are other issues to discuss. While I generally dislike "why" threads, I do agree that some on this forum are extremely invested in those two topics and don't consider some other aspects of city life. That's how education came up in the first place on this thread. When Federico Pena ran for mayor of Denver, his campaign slogan was "Imagine a Great City". You cannot have a great city without decent schools. The quality of the schools is far more important than how the kids get there.

ETA: I did not introduce the topic of schools on this thread. A teacher feels similarly to me brought it up.

The young male demographic on this forum do not seem to care about schools as a part of the "urban fabric". I will also point out that some have a huge interest in how people get to school.

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 01-15-2014 at 08:17 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 08:14 AM
 
Location: Poshawa, Ontario
2,986 posts, read 3,320,081 times
Reputation: 5622
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
"Looking at per capita neighbourhood carbon emissions, the report indicates that suburbanites produce more than downtowners."

It's pointless to respond to the rest of your points because they all rest on the false assumption that suburbs have less car use than cities, which is empirically disproven.
There might be some particularly auto-dependent cities that are the exception, but in general, if you're in a city rather than the suburbs, you don't drive as much or as far.
I never said subburbs have less car use than cities. I said that automobiles are not the sole source of pollution in a city, and that cities are far more polluted than subburbs are. Unless you are blind, the latter should be painfully obvious should you ever have looked toward a distant city on a summer day.

It is pointless to discuss this any further with you if you are going to continue to put words in my mouth in a lame attempt to obfuscate the facts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 08:32 AM
 
1,998 posts, read 2,932,190 times
Reputation: 2150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
I never said subburbs have less car use than cities. I said that automobiles are not the sole source of pollution in a city, and that cities are far more polluted than subburbs are. Unless you are blind, the latter should be painfully obvious should you ever have looked toward a distant city on a summer day.

It is pointless to discuss this any further with you if you are going to continue to put words in my mouth in a lame attempt to obfuscate the facts.
You said this: "While public transit is more heavily promoted in cities, it is very debatable whether that translates into more ridership per capita."

How am I putting words into your mouth? How is that you not arguing that suburbs have less car use than cities, or at least, not more car use?

Yes I know that other things produce pollution than cars. But cars are one of the biggest ones. And the studies I pointed to looked at CO2 emissions period, not just cars. They both found that suburbs have more CO2 emissions than cities. So far you haven't produced any evidence going the other way.

In addition, it is not at all clear that smog is worse in the cities than suburbs. Maybe in the Toronto area, that is true. But in Atlanta, the opposite is true: http://onlineathens.com/stories/0722...20722033.shtml

Last edited by stateofnature; 01-15-2014 at 08:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Center City
6,852 posts, read 7,799,244 times
Reputation: 9469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The quality of the schools is far more important than how the kids get there.
Given you have reduced this to an either/or matter, I whole-heartedly agree. I suspect if you opened a thread with a poll, most folks would also agree.

However . . .
Quote:
I agree that school improvement belongs in the ed forum.
Then why beat that horse here?
Quote:
I did not introduce the topic of schools on this thread. A teacher feels similarly to me brought it up.
2 wrongs make a right?
Quote:
The young male demographic on this forum do not seem to care about schools as a part of the "urban fabric".
Not only are you stereotyping, you are perhaps drawing a wrong conclusion. (Self-disclosure: I am not a young male.)
Quote:
I will also point out that some have a huge interest in how people get to school.
Well . . . those who are posting on that matter, are addressing the theme of the thread, not the topic you would like it to be.

Therefore, let's circle back to your first sentence:
Quote:
I agree that school improvement belongs in the ed forum.
Yep!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 09:56 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
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
What are you basing this on? While public transit is more heavily promoted in cities, it is very debatable whether that translates into more ridership per capita. To be quite honest, everyone I know that lives in Toronto has just as many cars per household as those of us who live in the subburbs, and I do not know anyone who does not have at least one. While this may not be the case in Manhattan, it is a fools game to compare Manhattan to Toronto or any other North American city.
While most North American don't have the contrast of NYC, almost every urban area has a higher transit use near the center and in denser areas and lower further out. Check memph's thread, where he created transit use maps for Canadian cities:

Mode share patterns across cities

The photo links are broken, hopefully memph can update. Transit use maps are available for American cities in the CD main site (maybe Canadian ones, as well).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 10:04 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
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I agree that school improvement belongs in the ed forum. THIS thread is asking why density and walkability are such huge topics on this forum, when there are other issues to discuss. While I generally dislike "why" threads, I do agree that some on this forum are extremely invested in those two topics and don't consider some other aspects of city life. That's how education came up in the first place on this thread. When Federico Pena ran for mayor of Denver, his campaign slogan was "Imagine a Great City". You cannot have a great city without decent schools. The quality of the schools is far more important than how the kids get there.
This thread asking why people ask why density and walkabilty are such huge topics in the city vs. city or general US forum. It got moved, because every thread discussing walkabilty, suburbia, and density in those threads gets moved to here. Some of the threads on here originally came from being moved.

And so for education being necessary for a great city, sure that's true. However, those interested in talking about schools you'll more likely find in the education 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