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 02-06-2014, 01:05 PM
 
9,528 posts, read 14,908,544 times
Reputation: 9775

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
But on the other hand, I don't know if you saw this interesting study on the success of Oakland's art murmur in the surrounding business district:
Report: Oakland First Fridays Benefit Restaurants and Vendors, Not Galleries | Culture Spy | East Bay Express

So basically, it has a been a "fail" for the artists. But the arts started a new Saturday walk to lure the real buyers. It just got way too crowded for the serious buyers.
The gallery storefronts are pretty much completely worthless as sales venues. Almost nobody buys fine art casually like that. But those who do buy fine art won't buy it unless the artist is represented a gallery with a public storefront. The art world is just plain bizarre.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2014, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,170 posts, read 29,785,473 times
Reputation: 26682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
Where did you read that?


Except that the bulk of pedestrian malls were refashioned downtown neighborhoods, accessible by public transit. Oh, well, thar blows another baseless, knee-jerk assumption ...
Really? All of our new ones are totally fake (ahem Bay Street in Emeryville, Santana Row in San Jose, Broadway Plaza in Walnut Creek - which is next to an actual old school small town main street). All of these are completely new development over the past 20 years fabricated to look like downtown or main street. Sacramento's is much the same actually. But less successful, since all of the neighboring suburbs have their own malls and strips malls with the same exact stores......

We have a fako pedestrian plaza think in downtown Oakland, called City Center. And it is a dead zone on the weekend. It is on top of transit etc...but almost all stores cater to workers during the week. ON the weekend it is pretty quiet, but a few cafes are doing well, and some innovative local businesses are working on making better development. But head over a 2 miles away, and we have a bunch of totally busy commercial districts where people are walking around, eating on the sidewalk and so on. It hasn't been closed to street traffic, I wouldn't call it a pedestrian plaza. (although my neighborhood commercial street does have a plaza, it used to be where the street car turned around...it is busy enough with musicians and bike parking. But it fronts a parking lot.

The only ped plazas I can think of that are more organic, in my region, are really Union Square in SF (different animal of course, the Embarcadero in SF, another different animal, as it is on the waterfront) and I guess technically Sproul Hall on Berkeley's campus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 02:31 PM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,202,224 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I was talking about people owning more than one vehicle!

I don't think anyone mentioned any conspiracy to take cars away. Did they?
I think it was pretty obvious I was agreeing with nei's post about using his car only to leave town.
Not sure what you were talking about.


Quote:
Malloric already responded to this conspiracy language, so I'll just say, I agree with him.As far as this being something "new", Boulder, Colorado has been trying to get people out of their cars for at least the last 40 years.
Quote:
And who's this "we" Kemosabe? Is this some "us vs them" thing? That's how these posts come off.
Quote:
You know, it does your cause no good to make it sound like a "vast . . . conspiracy" against city residents.
IMO, discussions about urban planning are about improving the built environment for everyone.
I don't see it as an "us vs them" conspiracy plot. YMMV
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 06:04 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,107 posts, read 102,884,582 times
Reputation: 33160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
I think it was pretty obvious I was agreeing with nei's post about using his car only to leave town.
Not sure what you were talking about.


IMO, discussions about urban planning are about improving the built environment for everyone.
I don't see it as an "us vs them" conspiracy plot. YMMV
As for the bold, see below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Boulder has one of the highest, if not THE highest, car ownership rates in Colorado, about 1 car per resident, meaning many have >1 car each.
I thought that was rather clear. YMMV.

And no, certainly no "us vs them" is implied with a remark like this:

Quote:
We just want to give the option to choose not to drive sometimes......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 06:15 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,170 posts, read 29,785,473 times
Reputation: 26682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post

And no, certainly no "us vs them" is implied with a remark like this:

OK, if you don't want to have non-driving options, you can be "them."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 06:19 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,107 posts, read 102,884,582 times
Reputation: 33160
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
OK, if you don't want to have non-driving options, you can be "them."
Nice twisting of my words, there, jade. It's this "we" I object to. Like there's some "you" out there. But you knew that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 06:21 PM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,202,224 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
As for the bold, see below:



I thought that was rather clear. YMMV.
I was responding to nei, not you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 06:39 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,170 posts, read 29,785,473 times
Reputation: 26682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Nice twisting of my words, there, jade. It's this "we" I object to. Like there's some "you" out there. But you knew that.
Pronoun usage can be pretty nebulous these days. What do you use for collective? You all?

Using something like "people like me." is pretty exclusive. I assumes no one agrees with me, which I don't think true.

We feels pretty inclusive in my book, if you self-identify with the "we." I used "we" to talk about subsidizing sprawl, and reading my posts, you know I am no fan of sprawl.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 07:27 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,107 posts, read 102,884,582 times
Reputation: 33160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
I was responding to nei, not you.
Which is why you quoted me.
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