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 09-24-2015, 03:58 PM
 
Location: The City
22,345 posts, read 32,231,632 times
Reputation: 7749

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948 View Post
the vast majority of mugging occur on foot close to home.

I have never been mugged in my car either

and what if you get mugged in the parking lot outside your car, is that an issue with walking as well
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-24-2015, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,071 posts, read 102,785,508 times
Reputation: 33127
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
You're making a huge, unproven presumption that the outer suburbs--and not anything more urban than that--are the proper domain of families. This forum has had this conversation over and over again, and there is nothing mutually exclusive about moderate density and houses, or density and soccer fields/football fields/baseball fields. If anything, a place where you can safely and comfortably bike everywhere, and where your older children can, too, and where many amenities--larger parks, stores, museums, etc.--are within very close proximity (walkable or bikable distance) seems like a far better place to raise children.
If you go to any, and I mean any city forum, you will find lots of "Moving to ___, where are the good (sometimes best) schools?" That's what people look for first. We've discussed city schools no end.

Moving to Denver from Iowa - after 10+ yrs of applying for jobs...need schools advice
Young Family... Where to live (See OP)
Making the right choice? (Ditto)
Good Elementary School in Omaha
Cleveland Area Public Schools for Gifted Middle Schooler
High Schools/Neighborhoods - Excellent Academics and Diverse Student Body?

However, the young, childless, predominantly male posters here have said more than once they don't care about schools.

Good schools usually beget good rec facilities for kids as well. Most suburbs have larger parks and stores within walking or biking distance, at least here in the west. Museums? How often do you go to museums? When was the last time you went to one? I was at the Heinz History Museum in Pittsburgh on July 20. That was probably my last time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
You provided no empirical evidence to support your claim that the "driveable" suburbs the are the "domain of those who are married with children," as if other built forms are not. Yes, many families live in the outer suburbs, but you provided no evidence that this was because they are intrinsically superior and not because of other causes.
You have provided no empirical evidence for your point either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Go back and re-read my post; I said nothing about "the city" and spoke only of proximity to amenities. Tell me, which is ultimately superior for the health and well-being of a family, having to drive everywhere for anything or being able to safely and comfortably walk or bike to a large plurality of amenities? And let's not pretend I suggested that a family couldn't or wouldn't have a car, but it is the difference between having dessert a part of one's diet or central to it.
I'm not finding your analogy particularly appropos. Many if not most suburban residents live in close proximity to amenities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2015, 02:03 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,009,893 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
I'm not finding your analogy particularly appropos. Many if not most suburban residents live in close proximity to amenities.
Right, but the later suburbs are, almost always, neither close enough nor with a comfortable/safe enough route to walk or bike. This is simply a function of an auto-centric built form--two-car garages, wide arterials, lots of parking--reinforcing itself because these features tend to discourage walking and biking and encourage driving.

So, again, I ask which is ultimately superior for the health and well-being of a family, having an area where driving is the norm and a necessity or one where it is safe and comfortable and proximate enough to walk or bike to amenities?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2015, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,071 posts, read 102,785,508 times
Reputation: 33127
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Right, but the later suburbs are, almost always, neither close enough nor with a comfortable/safe enough route to walk or bike. This is simply a function of an auto-centric built form--two-car garages, wide arterials, lots of parking--reinforcing itself because these features tend to discourage walking and biking and encourage driving.

So, again, I ask which is ultimately superior for the health and well-being of a family, having an area where driving is the norm and a necessity or one where it is safe and comfortable and proximate enough to walk or bike to amenities?
Totally disagree. As you like to say, you have provided no empirical evidence for this. And having a two car garage hardly means you don't live close enough to "amenities" to walk or bike. Nor does having wide streets or lots of parking have anything to do with that.

You're begging the question. Does it matter if these amenities are in the city or the suburbs? If so, why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2015, 03:20 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
45,992 posts, read 42,100,107 times
Reputation: 14811
Lower density places are more spread out by definition. So usually things are less close perhaps "not close enough".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2015, 04:24 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,009,893 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Totally disagree. As you like to say, you have provided no empirical evidence for this. And having a two car garage hardly means you don't live close enough to "amenities" to walk or bike. Nor does having wide streets or lots of parking have anything to do with that.

You're begging the question. Does it matter if these amenities are in the city or the suburbs? If so, why?
I haven't begged any such question because I haven't spoken of "the city," as if that is some thing that can be define independently. I'd have to assume here that "the city" and "the suburb" are unique, consistently identifiable entities in order to make any such comparison. All I've spoken of is proximity and, now, proximity in auto-centric developments. As Nei pointed out, the more land is portioned to cars, the more distant any two things are.

What I have asked is, of two contexts--one in which driving everywhere is encouraged by the built form, the other where walking and biking is safe, comfortable, and useful for getting to places--which is preferable for a family's health and well-being. Yes, I'm assuming auto-centricity and pedestrian-centricity are, given a finite amount of land, in opposition on a scale, but, no, I'm not getting in to another row with you about how you think wide streets and parking lots do not affect pedestrian and cyclist counts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2015, 05:13 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,071 posts, read 102,785,508 times
Reputation: 33127
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
I haven't begged any such question because I haven't spoken of "the city," as if that is some thing that can be define independently. I'd have to assume here that "the city" and "the suburb" are unique, consistently identifiable entities in order to make any such comparison. All I've spoken of is proximity and, now, proximity in auto-centric developments. As Nei pointed out, the more land is portioned to cars, the more distant any two things are.

What I have asked is, of two contexts--one in which driving everywhere is encouraged by the built form, the other where walking and biking is safe, comfortable, and useful for getting to places--which is preferable for a family's health and well-being. Yes, I'm assuming auto-centricity and pedestrian-centricity are, given a finite amount of land, in opposition on a scale, but, no, I'm not getting in to another row with you about how you think wide streets and parking lots do not affect pedestrian and cyclist counts.
The begging is in the bold.

"Driving everywhere" (and don't tell me that "everywhere" is just an expression; I've gotten crap for saying similar many times on this forum in particular) is not necessarily encouraged by the built form. That is an unfounded assumption that many urbanites make. Many suburbs also have bike paths; they usually have less traffic since most people who live in them are at work during the day (ie, not at home to be driving around on the city streets) and have fewer businesses for people to drive to.

Walking is not necessarily safe, comfortable and useful for getting to places in the, er, whatever you want to call it since you won't say "city". Whatever you want to call it traffic tends to be heavier, denser.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2015, 05:40 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
45,992 posts, read 42,100,107 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
"Driving everywhere" (and don't tell me that "everywhere" is just an expression; I've gotten crap for saying similar many times on this forum in particular) is not necessarily encouraged by the built form. That is an unfounded assumption that many urbanites make.
What?! How on earth is that unfounded? Compare two opposite ends; a neighborhood where most everyone lives in 1/2+ acre lots and businesses well separated from residences. And one where the residential densities above 15k/sq mile (either single family homes on very small lots or quite of multifamily dwellings mixed in) and commercial not that separated. In the first, almost all probably get around by car; it would be very difficult for most to otherwise. The second, less so.

Quote:
Walking is not necessarily safe, comfortable and useful for getting to places in the, er, whatever you want to call it since you won't say "city". Whatever you want to call it traffic tends to be heavier, denser.
Heavier traffic is slower traffic. Maybe not necessarily, but it's more likely to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2015, 06:22 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,009,893 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
The begging is in the bold.

"Driving everywhere" (and don't tell me that "everywhere" is just an expression; I've gotten crap for saying similar many times on this forum in particular) is not necessarily encouraged by the built form. That is an unfounded assumption that many urbanites make. Many suburbs also have bike paths; they usually have less traffic since most people who live in them are at work during the day (ie, not at home to be driving around on the city streets) and have fewer businesses for people to drive to.

Walking is not necessarily safe, comfortable and useful for getting to places in the, er, whatever you want to call it since you won't say "city". Whatever you want to call it traffic tends to be heavier, denser.
Well, I'm not necessarily talking about inner urban environments, ie, "the city," so it would work against my argument to start with that; instead, I chose to start from characteristics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2015, 08:00 PM
 
9,524 posts, read 14,881,852 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Right, but the later suburbs are, almost always, neither close enough nor with a comfortable/safe enough route to walk or bike. This is simply a function of an auto-centric built form--two-car garages, wide arterials, lots of parking--reinforcing itself because these features tend to discourage walking and biking and encourage driving.
I don't think these affect biking much. Walking, yes, because walking is miserably slow and to make it practical to walk to all amenities you have to have them all (and all the housing) within a 1 mile circle or so. This isn't true even in most major cities.

Quote:
So, again, I ask which is ultimately superior for the health and well-being of a family, having an area where driving is the norm and a necessity or one where it is safe and comfortable and proximate enough to walk or bike to amenities?
It's not a major factor.
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